Oh come on.. :p It's my laptop, my property. But if I tell you I'm going to hurt you if you don't give me your laptop, that is extortion.
> Likewise, we have collectively agreed (through the process of government, with all its flaws) to pay certain amounts in tax in certain situations.
"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).
Imagine there are 10 people in a room, and 9 of them decide that each will eat five of the hottest chilis in the world. Does that mean the remaining one has to eat them too, because they have "collectively decided" to eat chilis, or does he have the right not to participate?
Of course, the 9 people in the room have a sound and reasonable argument that murder is wrong (perhaps their argument is "it infringes the rights of others"), just as, we may presume, the nine chili-eaters have a sound and reasonable argument they must all eat the five hottest chilis. But in each instance, the tenth individual began from different premises and did not arrive at their conclusion (maybe he is an Incan time traveler and human sacrifice is part of his religious beliefs, and he does not see that there is any objective basis for human rights.)
Enforced collective agreement and societal norms are necessary for society to exists whether you like and agree to it or not. If that makes you a slave, then all of mankind has been enslaved from the dawn of time save the loners in the wilderness.
One of the libertarian's "collective agreements" is that every individual has certain rights.
You're doing a pretty good job at sophistry, but since you happened to use the word "right", I'd point out that decisions don't affect rights.
Compare these two ideas:
1) No one wants to be killed, and therefore, we can
reasonably consider killing someone forbidden.
2) The nine of us want to eat shit, and therefore,
we can reasonably conclude that you must eat shit
too, regardless of whether you want to or not.
Consider for example:
1) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward?
2) Do you have the right to walk 10 meters forward,
even though there's someone right in front of you,
and you'd have to trample over him to move forward?
What's the rationale for this claim?
Furthermore, is it moral for your average Sicilian neighbourhood mafia to extort people? -If not, why is it alright for governments to extort people? Does the end justify the means? -What if the Sicilian mafia wants to feed a few poor people with the money they extort from you? -Would that make their extortion alright?
What if the mafia say they need your money to maintain peace in the neighbourhood? You see, without the mafia's protection services, people would be killing each other left and right, and we just can't have that, can we? -Extorting you is necessary for the common good then, wouldn't you agree?
Why?
You're stating this as an axiom. Indeed, you're taking the very concept of human rights itself as an axiom, and that's why everything follows so cleanly for you.
But step out of the box. There is no reason for everyone to believe that. Most people through history did not believe in it. Many of them would have equally rational arguments to the contrary. Your very concept of "rights" as something fundamental is a deeply held Western social norm and "collective agreement." Because 9/10 people collectively agree that we have rights, our rights are protected and enforced.
If they did not agree, your idea of rights would be regarded as a fine bit of eccentricity and people would kill you as a sacrifice to the god Asdkjhf and feel that it was not only right and just but necessary. In other words, your rights would be completely meaningless. They are not an objective construct you can hold up as a shield against all wrongs.
Morality is an entirely different argument. But within the commonly held philosophical framework, a (democratic) government cannot be compared to a mafia because the government represents the will of the people while the mafia does not. But this argument can never convince you, because you have taken the axiom of individual rights to the extreme while not taking other axioms.
Yes, that's my point. But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
'"We" can't collectively agree on anything, because we're all individuals, and we all have the exact same rights as everyone else (which don't include making binding decisions on behalf of complete strangers).'
I disagree. Yes, we are all individuals. Yes, we all have the same rights. But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
Asking me if not-extortion is extortion doesn't make much of a point.
> But it's your laptop by social convention. There are very good reasons for that social convention, and I would oppose most changes to it, but there's nothing intrinsic to the state of the world other than what's collectively in our heads and extensions thereof that makes that laptop yours or it "right" that you continue to possess it.
Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.
> But when my rights and your rights (or my interests and your interests) collide, we need a mechanism for collective decision making.
A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people.
Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it. They'd do that because they'd both want to move on with their lives instead of wasting time, energy and effort on ultimately pointless bickering.
Reread the comment. I asked rhetorically if it was extortion, to raise the point of why it was not extortion, which I got at in the very next sentence.
'Yeah, the issue of rights is just as complicated as you want to make it. Or you can just reject any notion of rights altogether, if you want to completely filibuster a conversation.
But it's important to realize that reasoning helps us find the "truth" about things. Sure, next, you could go into metaphysics and claim we can't even know if the idea of "truth" makes any sense. But you have to draw the line somewhere, because otherwise you'll never reach a conclusion about anything.'
This really couldn't be more handwavy. I'm not going anywhere abstract - I want the society that works out the best for every individual in the short, medium, and long term, as best we can approach that. If that's where we get by treating the particular things you've labelled "rights" and respecting them with a deontological rigidness, then that's what I want to do. If that's where we get by stepping all over your "rights" then that's what I want to do. I think that it's clear from history that respecting certain rights is very important for medium- and long-term well-being of individuals in society. I also think it's clear that an ability to solve collective action problems is necessary and that massive concentration of power is a problem. My philosophy may not fit on a postage stamp, but that only a marketing problem, and reflects the fact that the world is complex.
"A monopoly on violence that enslaves hundreds of millions of people is not necessary for solving a dispute between two people."
Again, your language is absurd. Establish that hundreds of millions are enslaved - as normal people would use the word, not something you can technically force into place by ignoring important aspects of what people usually mean when they say enslavement - or gtfo.
A monopoly on legitimate initiation of violence is a great thing. Read some Hobbes and look at the violence we see in (for instance) drug turf wars, when recourse to the state is denied. We need to be vigilant to keep the leviathan in check and that initiation of violence to a minimum, but monopoly is tremendously better than allowing competitive violence - monopolies under-produce.
"Even the two people involved can reach an agreement, but if that doesn't work out, they could let some kind of arbiter/court settle it."
How do they pick which arbiter to turn to, if they haven't had dealings with each other before? If it's always a certain arbiter in a certain area, that's just the existing court system.