Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Fife]

The liberty to incite violence is not and should never be a right.

Your ONLY "natural Right" is your Right to Violence, which you exchange to The State for, hopefully, a society that advances your own well-being. A lot of people, especially women, are unaware of that sacrifice that men have made, taking it for granted because male policemen protect them with the exchanged violence.

What kind of violence? Be specific, please. Do you mean violence in self-defense, or violence in aggression, or something else?

Is there some right to aggress, to initiate violence against another human?

[Speaker to Animals]

He means Hobbes. That part, I think, is correct from an atheistic point of view. You have the right to make war. You surrender that right to a sovereign in order to enjoy other rights. That's a fundamental premise of Hobbes' Leviathan.

If you start with the premises of atheism, then I think you have to also start with that premise when it comes to government.

[Martin Hash]

The liberty to incite violence is not and should never be a right.

Your ONLY "natural Right" is your Right to Violence, which you exchange to The State for, hopefully, a society that advances your own well-being. A lot of people, especially women, are unaware of that sacrifice that men have made, taking it for granted because male policemen protect them with the exchanged violence.

What kind of violence? Be specific, please. Do you mean violence in self-defense, or violence in aggression, or something else?

Is there some right to aggress, to initiate violence against another human?

I mean if my needs are not being met by society, I have the natural Right of Violence to take what I need. I am only your ally because other men jointly assigned their Right of Violence to The State, but should enough of us decide to retake our Right of Violence, then I am your enemy.

[Fife]

Anyone you aggress against to "meet your needs" has the right to drop your ass in the street.

Articulate your "right" to take what you feel like you need from another man without his consent. What is that "right," and where does it come from?

[Speaker to Animals]

What gives one chimp troop the right to slaughter another for access to better fruit trees? Or, more to the point, what tells them they can't do that?

[Fife]

Chimps? What about jackals; or fish?

[Speaker to Animals]

Chimps? What about jackals; or fish?

What tells a shark it's not okay to eat another shark?

The answer: nothing.

What gives the shark the right to eat another shark:

The answer: nature.

What is the difference between a chimp and a homo sapiens? In the paleolithic, killing off other gangs of men for their women and resources was the way of life no differently than it still is for our primate cousins.

[Martin Hash]

Anyone you aggress against to "meet your needs" has the right to drop your ass in the street.

Articulate your "right" to take what you feel like you need from another man without his consent. What is that "right," and where does it come from?

It comes from testosterone.

You do not understand because you support the aristocracy, the hording of liberty by a tiny fraction of people who, like royalty, pass their hoard onto their heirs. You think your family is special, probably from a magical source or you were just born more worthy, and that magical force will maintain your hoarded opportunity, but it won't. You will eventually realize that while you were hoarding liberty, the other men were dreaming of the day they would regain their natural Right of Violence...

[Speaker to Animals]

Where I think Martin goes wrong is in thinking the violence is some solution to an aristocracy. In fact, it's the very basis of one. I think he has this backwards. What he calls the "aristocracy" are not really that. We call them that colloquially, but most of them are cowards and they certainly could never lead men in battle (most of them, anyway). If there is going to be violence, it's the men who do lead and fight who inflict violence on those they do not feel deserve the resources and privileges they have acquired, forming a real aristocracy.

Aristocracy is based on violence and martial rule.

Castro talked a great game about "the people" and "economic justice", yada yada, but at the end of the day, he was a true warrior who showed up with nothing more than a handful of men in a fucking yacht, raised an army, and overthrew the government. Then he installed himself as dictator for life. His brother inherited the power. That's a fucking aristocracy.

[Martin Hash]

The aristocracy does indeed benefit from State violence. If they had to maintain their own violence, it would be much, much more expensive, cutting into their wealth, but it would be better because all of that lost wealth is a form of redistribution to the soldiers, a natural spreading of liberty. In this current configuration, the aristocracy spends very little in taxes for a lot of violence; modern aristocratic society is a boon to them.