Simple Question | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Main Forum » Politics
NOS4A2
NOS4A2 Dec 20 '13
Can a person delegate a right that they do not have?


I certainly have no right to walk into your house, make myself at home and start eating your food, watching your TV and sleeping in your bed without consent from you. And, by extension, I also do not have the right to tell someone they can walk into your house, make themselves at home and start eating your food, watching your TV and sleeping your bed. 


By electing politicians that is essentially what people are doing: delegating rights to an individual that they themselves do not have. A strong argument for anarchy if there ever was one. 


Nith
Nith Dec 20 '13

There are no rights but for those you take by your own action!


Now the rights you talk about here are by someone else's law.


Just as you have no rights but those you take, you can also give up your rights by refusing to take an action. As for anarchy,,, I found most anarchy groups are only anarchy by name only.

NOS4A2
NOS4A2 Dec 21 '13
If I decide that I want to kill you I have that right simply by taking action and killing you? Interesting. 

"Most anarchy groups are anarchy by name only"


What is that even supposed to mean?

CanisMachina
CanisMachina Dec 21 '13
See, the fallacy here is thinking you're electing politicians to begin with. To participate in democracy entails choosing which prefabricated model is closest in line with views specifically tailored to give you the illusion of having a choice, and belief in freedom. Which ever poison you choose, you're still a mark, nothing more. There is no room for an individual in politics, only room for lobbyists, corporations, contractors, and media conglomerates that control puppets catering to special interest. It's not delegating rights as much as it is choosing which sales pitch to listen to.

Anarchy is not possible, or realistic. The product must be sold, and you must believe you're getting a good deal.
The Forum post is edited by CanisMachina Dec 21 '13
Nith
Nith Dec 21 '13

Calling for rights is little more than wanting justification or permission for a set action/ thought. The saying that actions speak louder than words also shines light on the topic of rights. The talk of rights boils down to little more than talk if it is not backed by the conviction of action.


The funny thing in society is what is thought of as common rights is simply permission to act. Who is it a person needs permission from and why?


As for the anarchy in name only, well that would be the same as most that use a title yet don't act like the title. Most anarchy groups I have dealt with have more rules and dogma than the groups they say they stand against. Canis touched on the issue that I would agree to as it is just a different product label and packaging with the same base item.

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Dec 21 '13
Quote from NOS4A2 Can a person delegate a right that they do not have?

This depends largely on how one attains entitlement.  You speak of Rights in a Normative sense. 
Quote from NOS4A2 I certainly have no right to walk into your house, make myself at home and start eating your food, watching your TV and sleeping in your bed without consent from you.

If I entitle myself to do just that, I have that Right.  If you do nothing to stop me, you have entitled me with Privilege



Quote from NOS4A2 By electing politicians that is essentially what people are doing: delegating rights to an individual that they themselves do not have. A strong argument for anarchy if there ever was one. 

The absence of culture, society and citizens may be a stronger argument for Anarchy.  


Politicians are not recommended by the citizens, those that qualify for the Normative standard nominate themselves, then actively fund-raise for support to be considered a Political elect candidate.


Said candidates entitle themselves by meeting the standards for running for political office.  The citizens that support them entitle them with privilege.   


Creating cohesive society creates a need (by citizens) for Government.  Any argument for absolute Anarchy is moot in lieu of this fact.  

Dan_Dread
Dan_Dread Dec 21 '13
Quote from NOS4A2 By electing politicians that is essentially what people are doing: delegating rights to an individual that they themselves do not have. A strong argument for anarchy if there ever was one.

Indeed. 


Yet the power of 'nomos', as it is, is such that most people can't even comprehend a world in which rules are not created for them by faceless masters behind closed doors. It is such that people tend to believe having a say in choosing ones master equates to freedom.


Some of these same folks even have the audacity to claim to be LHP.


It takes all types, I suppose.

NOS4A2
NOS4A2 Dec 21 '13
Quote from CanisMachina See, the fallacy here is thinking you're electing politicians to begin with. To participate in democracy entails choosing which prefabricated model is closest in line with views specifically tailored to give you the illusion of having a choice, and belief in freedom. Which ever poison you choose, you're still a mark...

How is that a fallacy I am committing when I realize that is the case? That is, I fully realize that all politicians are liars cut from the same cloth, voting is a joke and if it could actually change anything it would be illegal -- which is precisely why I do not participate in it. And yes, it absolutely is delegating rights that a person themselves does not have. We endow government and politicians with the power (right) to order mass-murder (war), engage in theft (taxes) and many others which we, as private citizens, do not have. And anarchy, on a large scale, might not be feasible at the moment, however, this does not stop anarchy on an individual level and although it is damn near impossible to live a life free from government one can still minimize their dependence on it. 



Quote from Dan_Dread
Quote from NOS4A2 By electing politicians that is essentially what people are doing: delegating rights to an individual that they themselves do not have. A strong argument for anarchy if there ever was one.

Indeed. 


Yet the power of 'nomos', as it is, is such that most people can't even comprehend a world in which rules are not created for them by faceless masters behind closed doors. It is such that people tend to believe having a say in choosing ones master equates to freedom.


Some of these same folks even have the audacity to claim to be LHP.


It takes all types, I suppose.


Yeah, most people require a master in one form or another because they lack ability to embrace true freedom. Me personally, I don't need to be "given" rights -- my rights exist on their own merit because I am sovereign being. As such, I reserve the right to follow or disregard any laws of man as it serves my purpose. 

SIN_JONES
SIN_JONES Dec 21 '13
Quote from NOS4A2 I fully realize that all politicians are liars cut from the same cloth, voting is a joke and if it could actually change anything it would be illegal

As a joke, you can certainly shift the numbers by using your vote as a punch-line.  Not to change the world but to shift the vote in favor of an unlikely candidate.  Your vote doesn't matter much on the Federal Level (U.S.) because of the electoral college, on the local side - it drags the numbers down for a person that is likely to win due to funding and popularity.  


Look at what all those Obama supporters were doing at the polling centers.  They were harassing people to vote for him by using intimidation tactics.  You don't think some people voted for him because of that?  Many people didn't even vote because of it.  It's not choosing a Master, it's fucking with the system.  Even the rhetoric and propaganda is used to influence the people to vote or not vote.  


From an observation stand-point, it's a social experiment. 


 

UserX
UserX Dec 21 '13
Quote from NOS4A2 Can a person delegate a right that they do not have?

How would we actually define the meaning of the word/concept "right" in this context?


A dictionary definition of "right" is: 



"right 1) n. an entitlement to something [...]


right (Entitlement), noun: authority, authorization, due, fair claim, heritage, inalienable interest, ius, iusta, just claim, justification, legal claim, legal power, legal title, power, prerogative, privilege, sanction, stake, title, vested interest, warrant..." 


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/right

Can a person delegate (bestow/authorize) "entitlement" to a person who is not "entitled" to something? Maybe.

There was a time when Black people were not "entitled" to being free people in America. But eventually they were given that "entitlement."

Does a male animal during mating season have an entitlement to copulate any female he wants? Not really. We'd be stretching the limits of the meaning of the humanized word/concept of "entitlement" in this case. If the male fights off other males, by force, he gets rid of competition and get to mate with all the females. The other male animals here did not delegate or bestow the alpha male his "rights" to the females. The other males removed themselves from the game/competition. 


Can a person bestow "power" "authority" "privilege" (etc) to another person who does not have such? It happens. 

It happens like in the case of people like the billionaire Donald Trump. With his wealth, he's got privileges, vested interests, a just claim, to the life style he enjoys. But where did all that money come from? From the many people buying his properties, and those who invest their money into his enterprises. 

When we use words like "delegate," or "bestow," or "entitle" (In-Title)," or "give," what we are suggesting in real terms is that one party has something to give to another party who lacks this something. 

And so a king can give/invest/confer titles to peers because he makes/produces all the titles, which he thus has to give out. 

Donald Trump doesn't print or mint money, but he has billions of it. But only because other people has some cash to give, delegate to him. 

A political leader doesn't have "power," but they get it. Here the word/concept "power" should be defined or explained. "Power" here means Force of Authority. Which in turn just basically means that when the leader gives an order, we do what he says. He makes a law, and we follow the law. 

But that power a leader has is given to him, if by "power," we mean the ability or capability for him to get others to do as he says. It is said that we "consent" power to such leaders.

The word "consent" basically is made up of two parts: (a) Con meaning "with;" and (b) Sent, from the Latin 'sentir' meaning to "feel," which is where we get the English word "sense." Together to "consent" means to Feel-With or "Agree-With," something or someone. It doesn't mean to "give." 

Like one of your homies would say to you, "I'm hungry, let's go to the liquor store and get some grub." And you say back, "I feel ya nigga. Let's do it." That's what consent looks like. You can see that one nigga called the shots, and another nigga Agreed-With the suggestion made. Why though? Because of mutual benefit in this case. They were both hungry, the suggestion was sound. Thus, one nigga stopped what he was doing to follow the suggestion of the other nigga. 

Same case with the Trump example. Trump's wealth was "consented" to him. He has his Trump Organization, he goes to potential investors and says: "I can make us some money, invest in my shit." And some people will invest knowing that Trump is good at making money. 

Same thing in the political arena. An elected leader has the "power" because such "power" was consented by the people. If by "power' here we mean that the elected leader has the ability or capacity to get others to do what he says. For him to have the "power" to get other to do what he says, there needs to actually be people who are willing to do what he says. That's the "consent" part of if. 

This suggests something. It suggests that somewhere in the political process we Agreed-With or Felt-With this elected leader. He either said something or did something which got us to go along with him. 

This is where "political parties" comes into play. A "political party" is just a club or bag of ideas/beliefs a group of people agree-with. Did Hitler have the "power" to do what he did in Germany? Yes he did. How did he get that power? By organizing a "political party," which told the people of that era what they wanted to here: that some White people were really cool. The Germans of that era Agreed-With him, Felt-With him - resonated with him, vibed with him - and let him call the shots. 


Quote from NOS4A2

By electing politicians that is essentially what people are doing: delegating rights to an individual...


The way I see it, nation-state are like "superorganism." The Great Leviathan as Hobbes once call it. I think it was Hobbes, I could be wrong. 


Like all organisms, a nation-state evolves towards greater potential, or towards higher degree of causal expression/manifestation. There is a gradual development from something simple, to something more complex, "better," and more able to function and manifest it's will. The objective of a nation-state's evolution seems to be the living standards and growth of its citizens.

So in ancient times human "civilization/society" was really simple. You had a few tribes living on small territory. The territory offered the tribe guys food, resources, and so on. That's the living standard part. 

The manifesting of greater potential comes when such society is stable. When the society reaches equilibrium. Meaning when the society or social ordering of these humans have got their shit down right. The farms are irrigated, the cows are farmed, store houses are pretty full. People have shit to eat. Everything is working good as a system. So in that healthy systematic state, the people of this society can now afford to be a little idle to contemplate the stars, do a little art work, invent the wheel, paint some caves, make up an alphabet, do some math, etc. That's manifestation.  


The problem is, that manifestation part can only last as long as the system (society or social order) is healthy and in its state of equilibrium. This implies a few things.

It implies that if our hypothetical tribal society loses it tribal leader, or if another tribes makes war, that the health of the system is jeopardized. Meaning that the coherency of the social order may be broken apart. If this occurs the superorganism the society is, loses its power to live and manifest its will. This in turn suggests a need for evolution, where human society must in time gradually develop and evolve to be more sophisticated, more interconnected, more systematic, or complex. 

And so tribal society evolves to become war lord society. War lord society evolved to become kingdoms. Kingdoms evolve to become dynasties and empires. 

It's kingdoms which have brought our species this far. Since the dawn of Sumer and Egypt till just recently. That's a great achievement for this superorganism. But this superorganism call a kingdom/empire has its weakness.

The weakness of a kingdom is that its usually only stable during the life of its king. But even this isn't a stable design because the king (monarch) has competition and gets assassinated. Even if we say that a kingdom superorganism can maintain equalibrium for one human lifetime (the life time of its monarch) that's only 100 years. Because with every new king, the superorganism gets a new "head" and moves into a new direction. So it's like a creature trying to evolve, but every 100 years it changes it's mind and goes in a different evolutionary direction. Which means that it might not go anywhere evolutionary wise.

The concept of modern democracy where political parties plays a major role, is the next stage in evolution of the nation-state. Why? Because a "political Party" out lives a human being (monarch or otherwise). 

Nature - Human Nature - has gotten rid of the unstable and short duration king (and the prerogative/will of a monarch) and has replaced it with the Political Party (and the will and ideals of such parties). So therefore, a nation-state can sustain longer stability (equilibrium) as a system/collective because a political party (its ideals, ideology, and worldview, as well as its will) doesn't die. A memeplex doesn't die. 


An elected leader of a modern nation-state - democracy/republic - is just an dispensable organ of a political party. The political party picks a person who get's represents the will of the party. That will is what "drives" the nation-state. 

The political machine of a nation-state is like the Hollywood industry. It's a monster that must be constantly fed. Actors are cool for only as long as the public likes them, and then they get booted like an old shoe. 

Political parties are the same way. Elected official come and go and many are forgotten. They simply serve a short purpose for the party. The party and its will is what drives the political machine. Not the president. 

I personally believe that with nation-states the benefits far out weights the negative stuff. An evolved super-organism like America can use its collective force to put people on the moon and put shit on Mars. That's what greater human potential looks like. That potential - if you pay attention - manifests within the matrix of a social super-organism. In the same way that what individual potential we each have, actually manifests within and because of a superorganism of trillions of cells we call a body and brain. You just can't get those kind of end results (greater human potential) outside of something as organized and powerful as a nation-state. 

Anarchy - the way the term is generically used - would mean a devolution of human potential and human evolution. Sure nation-states and political parties aren't perfect. But when in the course of biological evolution was any organism perfected? 



The Forum post is edited by UserX Dec 21 '13
CanisMachina
CanisMachina Dec 21 '13
@ Nos4A2

I agree with you for the most part, but...

It is a fallacy because politicians are not bestowed rights as much as they are obligation to serve their campaign contributors, and the private interest that influences any governance you may perceive. In some cases they may be affiliated with (or even "own") said contributors, but even in this case the agenda of other shareholders is a large player in decision making.

Take war for example; mass murder is irrelevant when considering the defense contracts behind any war effort. Without a war to fight there is no need for the lucrative investment to supply the toys necessary.

Behind taxes (in America) is a private bank called The Federal Reserve. Once again, the government is just a PR firm for private interest. Your not electing politicians. Your electing a banks, and corporations with a friendly face to sell you slavery.

This is why I say anarchy is not realistic, despite how much I object to its alternative.
The Forum post is edited by CanisMachina Dec 21 '13
NOS4A2
NOS4A2 Dec 22 '13
@ UserX


"A dictionary definition of "right" is: 



"right 1) n. an entitlement to something [...]


right (Entitlement), noun: authority, authorization, due, fair claim, heritage, inalienable interest, ius, iusta, just claim, justification, legal claim, legal power, legal title, power, prerogative, privilege, sanction, stake, title, vested interest, warrant..." 


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/right

Can a person delegate (bestow/authorize) "entitlement" to a person who is not "entitled" to something? Maybe.

There was a time when Black people were not "entitled" to being free people in America. But eventually they were given that "entitlement."


You misunderstand me. When I ask "can a person delegate a right they do not have" I am asking if a person can delegate a right that they themselves (the one delegating) doesn't have. I am not asking if one can give a person a right that they (the one being "given" the right) formerly did not have. 


@ CanisMachina


"It is a fallacy because politicians are not bestowed rights as much as they are obligation to serve their campaign contributors, and the private interest that influences any governance you may perceive. In some cases they may be affiliated with (or even "own") said contributors, but even in this case the agenda of other shareholders is a large player in decision making." 


Yes, politicians can be bought by campaign contributions. But that does not mean that agents of government are not given certain rights/power by people who do not possess those rights themselves. Police have the power to kidnap and imprison people with the help of the courts. These are all made up of people. People who, were they not agents of government, would not have the "right" to do such things. 

"Take war for example; mass murder is irrelevant when considering the defense contracts behind any war effort. Without a war to fight there is no need for the lucrative investment to supply the toys necessary."


Again, this does not negate the fact that people on their own don't have the right to invade their neighbor's property and start blowing shit up and shooting people.


"Behind taxes (in America) is a private bank called The Federal Reserve. Once again, the government is just a PR firm for private interest. Your not electing politicians. Your electing a banks, and corporations with a friendly face to sell you slavery." 

 

See above response for how I would respond to this. 


"This is why I say anarchy is not realistic, despite how much I object to its alternative."


If anything, that should be why anarchy is the only logical alternative. Whether or not people will ever open their eyes to this is debatable. 


The Forum post is edited by NOS4A2 Dec 22 '13
CanisMachina
CanisMachina Dec 23 '13
First off, I will concede that those in government are awarded privileges that others do not have. However, government agents are not elected officials. I feel theses abuses  are ingrained in the psyche, and part of a larger picture. A system of control driven by wealth and power. I will elucidate what I feel the dynamic for this is below.
Quote from NOS4A2

If anything, that should be why anarchy is the only logical alternative. Whether or not people will ever open their eyes to this is debatable.


 Unfortunately only a select few are repulsed by order. People like to place boxes around themselves. People like slavery, in fact I would say most require it. It alleviates the need to think for themselves. Society is a pyramid. The order maintains the apex. Even if you destroyed it, there would be those that would climb to the highest point of the rubble and start construction anew, the slave changes clothing, and the cycle repeats.

 

Alphas will always arise. This is animal instinct, and they will always instill some sort of control to keep their dominance. There will always be lesser animals, some might contest, but most will follow for self preservation.

 

Today you have a handful of companies that basically control the entire finance system. You have a globalized economy that supersedes government. The fittest survived, conglomerated, and now dangle the world on strings. They are the alphas. The world is too interconnected, and anarchy doesn't work for their business model. 

 

About the only way to avoid their influence is a self sustaining commune, off the grid, and free from regulation. But even that scenario sees alphas rise to prominence, infighting, and self interest come into play. This will never change.

The Forum post is edited by CanisMachina Dec 23 '13

Issue Reporting

Report any issues to satanhimself@circleofdescent.com. He may, or may not, get back to you in a timely manner.