3 ms·

> where everyone has to justify their claim but why shouldn't that be the case? There's no natural rights to anything, and it's the law of the jungle. There's

by chii 3y ago

> where everyone has to justify their claim but why shouldn't that be the case? There's no natural rights to anything, and it's the law of the jungle. There's a veneer of civility so as not to cause anarchy with people killing each other for some food. But just because someone exists, doesn't give them any privileges to own anything, except for what they worked for (or get given from parents).

somewhereoutth 3y ago
> There's no natural rights to anything, and it's the law of the jungle. Except the crowning achievement of our civilisation is the realisation that there are natural rights (see UN Declaration of Human Rights, US Constitution etc). Indeed, the Rule of Law is perhaps a greater achievement than democracy, and from a jungle perspective not self evident. The property rights you allude to are also part of this Rule of Law, otherwise stuff would belong to whoever was strong enough to take it!
- chii 3y ago
  That's why i call it a veneer. Just have a look at the blackout of New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977#Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977... , and how much crime it led to, just because the veneer is torn off. People are only civil because they fear the threat of punishment. As soon as this threat is removed, or is evident that it's unenforceable, you tell me what "natural rights" exist?
  - somewhereoutth 3y ago
    Generally speaking, people become uncivil only when under extreme stress (e.g. of poverty). Most people are inherently civil in their nature, hence we have a civilisation that reflects this fact. Contrast Portugal, with almost no crime, vs the US, with well documented crime problems. Certainly punishments are no harsher in Portugal than the US, if anything the reverse. However in Portugal people aren't as financially stressed as in the US, not least as everyone has access to healthcare, justice, democracy etc regardless of ability to pay. See also the concept of 'policing by consent' in the UK.
acuozzo 3y ago
> except for what they worked for (or get given from parents) Why should they be entitled to this if it's the law of the jungle? Beavers building a dam aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor. Being entitled to what you worked for is not a natural right. It's a right granted to you by the state just like any other. Without the state, someone stronger/better/faster can just come and take it all away.
jodrellblank 3y ago
> "but why shouldn't that be the case? [...] so as not to cause anarchy with people killing each other for some food." I feel like you answered your own question there. It shouldn't be the case because with anarchy everyone loses. You give your sibling some of your birthday cake because if you don't and they throw the cake on the floor in anger, you don't get any of your cake either, and if you do then later on at their birthday they give you their cake. In one case you both lose, in the other case you both gain.

by chii 3y ago

somewhereoutth 3y ago

> There's no natural rights to anything, and it's the law of the jungle. Except the crowning achievement of our civilisation is the realisation that there are natural rights (see UN Declaration of Human Rights, US Constitution etc). Indeed, the Rule of Law is perhaps a greater achievement than democracy, and from a jungle perspective not self evident. The property rights you allude to are also part of this Rule of Law, otherwise stuff would belong to whoever was strong enough to take it!

chii 3y ago
That's why i call it a veneer. Just have a look at the blackout of New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977#Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977... , and how much crime it led to, just because the veneer is torn off. People are only civil because they fear the threat of punishment. As soon as this threat is removed, or is evident that it's unenforceable, you tell me what "natural rights" exist?
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  Generally speaking, people become uncivil only when under extreme stress (e.g. of poverty). Most people are inherently civil in their nature, hence we have a civilisation that reflects this fact. Contrast Portugal, with almost no crime, vs the US, with well documented crime problems. Certainly punishments are no harsher in Portugal than the US, if anything the reverse. However in Portugal people aren't as financially stressed as in the US, not least as everyone has access to healthcare, justice, democracy etc regardless of ability to pay. See also the concept of 'policing by consent' in the UK.

acuozzo 3y ago

> except for what they worked for (or get given from parents) Why should they be entitled to this if it's the law of the jungle? Beavers building a dam aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor. Being entitled to what you worked for is not a natural right. It's a right granted to you by the state just like any other. Without the state, someone stronger/better/faster can just come and take it all away.

jodrellblank 3y ago

> "but why shouldn't that be the case? [...] so as not to cause anarchy with people killing each other for some food." I feel like you answered your own question there. It shouldn't be the case because with anarchy everyone loses. You give your sibling some of your birthday cake because if you don't and they throw the cake on the floor in anger, you don't get any of your cake either, and if you do then later on at their birthday they give you their cake. In one case you both lose, in the other case you both gain.