The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Do you have the natural, inalienable right to right to roam in Alton Towers?

Interesting question. If there's an angry mob after me, intent on doing me harm, and Alton Towers is directly in my path and going around it would result in me getting a good and possibly terminal biffing then I'd argue that yes, I have the right to enter and roam Alton Towers in search of safety. However, absent any such life-threatening circumstance I'd say no, I don't have the right to roam Alton Towers, or any private property, without the consent of the property owner. Your question, however, raises a crucial point - are countries private property and, if so, who owns them? It would appear that governments believe countries to be private property - otherwise how would they justify charging rent (property taxes, etc.) for living in them?

[Frank]

I don't have the right to roam Alton Towers, or any private property, without the consent of the property owner

Why do you respect the right of a PLC* to extract a profit more than the desire of a community to know who's in their midst?


* Merlin Entertainments Plc, in this case

[The Legendary Shark]

geese travel thousands of miles every year without a shred of paperwork.

...but move into their territory when they don't want you to and they'll try to kill you (whatever you are), like most other species on the planet.

Not sure that's entirely the same argument. Geese come from Canada to winter in the area where I live and they get on fine with all the other birds once they arrive. I'm sure there must be a few squabbles but it's never all-out goose v duck war.

Similarly, many animals show tolerance for each other around watering holes on land or cleaning stations in the oceans, for example. Many animals will, however, get shirty if their nests, young, social group or persons are threatened - but that's the right to self defence, which is slightly different to the right of movement.

Whilst animal rights and behaviours can give us insights into the natural rights of other species they cannot, in my view, be applied precisely to the natural rights of the human species. Each species has its own specific - but fundamentally similar - natural behaviours and instincts which give rise to their own "rights," as it were, just as the basic behaviours and instincts of human beings form the basis of our own rights.

By the way, as social animals I would define a human right as the right to undertake any action that does not harm another human being. Vegans take this one step further to the right to undertake any action that does not harm another cognizant being. I'd love to be able to take it that far but I'm afraid I'm a bit of a carnivore at present.

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't have the right to roam Alton Towers, or any private property, without the consent of the property owner

Why do you respect the right of a PLC* to extract a profit more than the desire of a community to know who's in their midst?


* Merlin Entertainments Plc, in this case

I respect property rights, to a degree. I respect the closed door of your home, under normal conditions, and your right to do as you please (so long as you're not harming others) inside that space. I haven't read that link, sorry, but I also respect the property rights of companies to precisely the same extent - no harm, no foul.

If, however, harm is being done to others and the only way to stop it is to invade private property, no matter who owns it, then I say invade away.

In the spirit of full disclosure, however, I have recently begun to question the libertarian principle of the absolute right to own property, specifically land. On the one hand, it seems necessary for people to own land and homes but, on the other, how much? If a person can own an acre of land he can own ten acres, a thousand acres, an island, a county, a country, a continent, a planet, a solar system. To own land leads to ruling land, a troublesome concept to me because rulers are, in my view, at the root of most of our problems - yet to limit or restrict land ownership is equally troublesome as it necessitates externally enforced limits, which I'm also against. I've been trying to think of some solution to this paradox but, so far, have only been able to think of something along the lines of changing the right of ownership to the right of stewardship based on the fundamental concept that the planet does not belong to us but that we belong to the planet. Other libertarians I talk to about this are, on the whole, unwilling to even discuss it.

[Frank]

I respect the closed door of your home, under normal conditions, and your right to do as you please (so long as you're not harming others) inside that space ... I also respect the property rights of companies to precisely the same extent

Why is a community, rather than an individual, less deserving of your respect than an amorphous, unnatural entity such as a Plc?

[The Legendary Shark]

They deserve the same respect because communities and companies are made up of individuals. One person, in my view, has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as two people, ten or a million - they are indivisible, not cumulative. Do no harm and do as you will, do harm and face the consequences.

Statists' views are the opposite and boil down quite simply to might makes right. They give themselves the superhuman right to make legislation, pretending that this is Law, to protect favoured companies from regulation, prosecution and even competition.

I have nothing against companies, in principle, so long as they adhere to common rights, responsibilities and Law. Indeed, the only death penalty I am fully in favour of is the execution of companies (not the people who own or work for them) who do willful harm. For example, if the restaurant chain "MacBurgers" knowingly or negligently poisons its clients it should be executed - its name stricken out,its profits and assets seized and used to recompense the shareholders (if innocent) and the remainder, if any, gifted to the communities in which the branches are located (maybe even given to the local - if innocent - employees) to be run as individual standalone businesses. This done, those responsible, including those who knowingly went along with it ("I was just following orders" is no excuse) should be tried in court and dealt with accordingly.

And now I'm off to watch a dvd.

[Frank]

They deserve the same respect because communities and companies are made up of individuals. One person, in my view, has exactly the same rights and responsibilities as two people, ten or a million

So why don't you respect the right of a community to control entry into their territory in the way you would for any Plc?

Enjoy your film, Shark.

[Funt Solo]

Fundamentally, I don't need one.

Fundamentally, yes you do.  (Assuming you wish to travel unmolested from one country to another where there is a legal requirement for you to produce a passport.  You could attempt to evade the border authorities disguised as a goose, I suppose.  Good luck, and please send photos.)

Perhaps you meant "ideologically"? 

[The Legendary Shark]

I did enjoy the film thanks, Frank. Of course I respect the right of a community to exclude me or anyone else from their territory if they so desire. I might not like it, it leads to all kinds of unsavoury possibilities like whites only enclaves and such but, if they own the land and make those rules, and apply them Lawfully, who am I to interfere? There are plenty of other places I could go instead. (We might be touching here upon the idea that entire countries can be owned, but I really don't see how except by a state. But as states are basically small groups of people claiming rights they don't have, I don't think that kind of ownership is valid.)

Funt, no, I mean fundamentally, not ideologically. As you say yourself, it's the "authorities" stopping me, the state. And it does so using superhuman rights it bestows upon itself, which are, at core, illusory. The fact that the illusion is so widely accepted as reality is what leads to their power. If people stopped believing in the illusion it would have no power. I've already said that legality, stemming from legislation, is the simulacrum of Law, that the authorities write down whatever they want and pretend it's Law. Law never changes, thou shalt not kill being as true today as it was thousands of years ago, but legality changes all the time - one of the best examples being prohibition in the U.S. Government says alcohol is legal, then it says it's illegal, then it says it's legal again when, Lawfully, drinking alcohol has been permissible since it was first discovered. Even elephants and wasps get pissed. As a general rule of thumb, if it's natural it's Lawful. Fundamentally, then, I don't need a passport - it's the ideology of statists that says I do, and the ideology of statists that prevents me from travelling without one.

(Deadpool 2, by the way - and very entertaining it was an' all.)

[Frank]

I respect the right of a community to exclude me or anyone else from their territory ... if they own the land and make those rules, and apply them Lawfully, who am I to interfere?

... But as states are basically small groups of people claiming rights they don't have, I don't think that kind of ownership is valid

Why isn't a state a community, with the same rights as a community?

[The Legendary Shark]

That's the question, isn't it? Do you have the same rights as the Queen? Does your local parish council have the same rights as your local county council? Does your local county council have the same rights as the government? Do your neighbours have the same rights as MPs? It's my argument that, in reality, they do, but most people believe otherwise.

[Frank]

Does your local parish council have the same rights as your local county council? Does your local county council have the same rights as the government? Do your neighbours have the same rights as MPs?

They seem exactly the same to me, too.

How high up the chain you outline do we have to go before these organisations cease being communities electing representatives to carry out their will and become The State, oppressing the people and laying claim to rights they don't have?

[Dandontdare]

You shouldn't have voted Leave, Sharky.

I don't vote at all.

Whatever its flaws, we do have a system that allows people to express their views and determine outcomes. If you choose not to vote, you lose the right to whinge about the outcome. I like asking people who deploy the "unelected bureaucrats" argument who they voted for as MEP and very few voted, or even know who stood. Democracy is the least-worst tool we've got, -I frankly don't give a shit what a non-voter thinks, as they have abrogated their collective responsibility to make sure the system works.

[The Legendary Shark]

Frank, until you get to the first person who believes he or she has the right to give you orders.

DDD - I don't vote because I don't have the right to put someone into power who may demand that you do something you don't want to do. I believe exactly the opposite to you - if you vote, then you have no right to complain because you've agreed to be ruled by whomever wins. Moreover, a person who votes believes everyone must submit to that rule whether they like it or not.

I don't want to harm anybody, I don't want to rule anybody, I don't want to force anybody to live in a way I find acceptable - neither do I have the right to do any of these things. By not voting, I have every right to complain when these things are done to me without my consent.

A voter consents to being ruled, a non-voter does not.

[M.I.K.]

Similarly, many animals show tolerance for each other around watering holes on land or cleaning stations in the oceans, for example. Many animals will, however, get shirty if their nests, young, social group or persons are threatened - but that's the right to self defence, which is slightly different to the right of movement.

I had half of a rather long, multi-paragraphed and nuanced reply typed out and then the power went off for five hours, but basically...

Set up a bird table and you'll soon see a bit more competition.

..and...

It's all tied up together. Animals don't like others, (mostly of their own species), encroaching upon their territory for pretty much the same reasons that crop up whenever anybody starts going on about needing strict border control and immigration laws. The same perceived threats. It's fear of someone from outside using up your limited resources, fear that they'll spread disease, fear that they'll take what's rightfully yours, fear that they'll do something to the children, fear that they'll take over and you'll have to do what they want, fear that they'll do you harm. Some of the time there may indeed be a genuine threat but most of the time it's like a cat reacting to a cucumber.