Comment: A fascinating debate, and one

(See in situ)

A fascinating debate, and one

A fascinating debate, and one I watched with interest as I've been recently trying to understand anarchists' ideas.

Here's what I don't get.

I don't get this notion of natural rights in terms of what Rose means. Rose seem to champion some little force, which he never calls government, and he makes pains to describe as some group of friend he gets together, but which he asserts are good and true and dedicated to evidence and ferreting out truth. He doesn't claim any authority other than that this group passes his good-guy metric. His judge and jury is self-referential. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to depend on that. I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to depend a gang of Rose's friends to be fair.

I've tried to delve into the first inklings of the rights nature gives us -- the Hobbsian ideas. And I guess I'm kind of left thinking like Hobbes: We all have rights that extend as far as we can wield them. My right to life extends are far as I can defend it. My right to property/resources extends are far as I can defend it.

Supercool if you're 6'4" and 22O. Supercool if you're gifted at getting such folks on your side.

Um...but most of us aren't and can't. I'm not excited by such a social contract and I'm going to work toward something that serves me -- and most of humanity. I'm into right ameliorates might.

We are all living under might makes right. In the Hobbsian sense. It's just true. If you can overpower me and get my purse, you get my purse. If you can overpower the locks on my doors and get to my valuables before I get to my gun, you get my valuables. If I've got no Rose-group of tough guys to go knocking at your door and "asking" for my valuables back, I'm out of luck.

Rose seems to be just replacing the authority of the group with the authority is his friends (which I should feel all comfy with because he vouches for them.)

I'm at a loss to see how Rose and his gang of friends is any less an authority/government than the sort of authority/government I get to at least vote for or against. Rose is calling for authority based on friendship. Not rule of law agreed to by the people. He fails to understand the whole evolution of the term and ideal of government. His friend-brigade is just feudalism. We swept his sort into the dust bin three centuries ago.

I don't pretend to know much about anarchism, but I'm pretty dead set against Mr. Rose's group of "rational friends" knocking at my door and demanding whatever their group-think has decided I've taken.

Might makes right; that's natural law. People conspire to place themselves above the laws of nature We've done that through family structure, through clan structure, through tribal structure, then on to regional and state. The state -- the collusion of the people against the Rose-and-friends brigades.

Shiver-me-timbers. I just don't get how I shouldn't be arming myself against Rose his little anarchist friend posse more so than the government I've participated in.