No.78987
How would you refute this, /liberty/?
Not a leftist shitposter, just curious in your response.
No.78989
0/10
no matter the system people must work to survive. the only choice is for whom. it doesnt even have to be for another person if working for yourself is the best option
No.78990
Because the second person indeed has a choice between working for the first person or not. The image magically suspends the fact that human needs exist and are complex for the communists then just as magically brings it back to imply that capitalism isn't equitable.
No.78992
>>78987
We've had like ten god damned threads of this exact image with it turning into some dude shopping it to be more accurate.
Holy shit, I just realized the reason /liberty/ doesn't have traditional memes, the threads themselves are the memes. They just repeat over and over and aren't even funny. It's like the old wreck-it-ralph threads from /b/.
No.79004
>>78989
Slavery or starvation, it's not a choice, it's a threat.
No.79005
>>79004
>implying the ancap society isn't run by self-sustaining yeoman farmers like Jefferson intended
No.79006
>>79004
If you're too fucking stupid to sustain yourself without working for someone else, you absolutely deserve to be a slave.
No.79008
>>79004
So I guess existence itself is threatening you?
No.79009
>>79004
Picking berries or starvation, it's not a choice, it's a threat.
No.79013
>>79004
>we need to eat in order to survive
>we need to work in order to eat
>slavery
No.79014
>>79004
blame your parents not capitalism faggot
No.79019
>>79008
Existence does not limit the access to the means of production, it's capitalists who do that. It's pretty hypocritical to whine about how people don't want to work, when they do in fact want to work, they just don't want to pay rent to you simply to survive.
No.79020
>>79019
>the food is oppressing me by not teleporting into my stomach
No.79023
>>79004
Starvation isn't actually that much of an issue. Dandelion root, for instance, is about 2,000cal/lb.
The fact that the government will seize any children you have as part of their forced-work scheme is a bit bigger. And the fact that there's a fuckload of "an"caps between your post and this one overtly supporting that gives you an idea of how "nonauthoritarian" and "voluntary" their plans are.
Even if you're camping in the olympic peninsula rainforest, if you don't have piped running water ("government water," transaction-based water), the government will seize your children. It's just what's going on, and that's how capitalism gets its "voluntaries" - from the government.
No.79028
>>79023
So they give you computer time in the mental institution?
No.79037
>>79004
>everyone is entitled to the sweat of the farmer's brow
>i'm not enslaving farmers to the ungrateful mob, i'm liberating the masses from the farmers
No.79038
>>79037
Liberating the masses from land monopoly, mostly.
>>79028
Congrats on turning the entire homesteading community against you.
Might as well be calling people mentally ill for saying that the NFA involves legal restrictions.
No.79043
>>79038
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know we were in the presence of the entire homesteading community's official emissary. Please, have your delegation confer our most sincere apologies to them. As the appointed representative of all nosteponsnekians, I have the authority to apologize for all of our collective actions.
No.79051
>work for the boss or starve
You can work for him, or work for one of the many other employers competing for your employment, or be self-employed with your own business, or start a farm. There are many ways to feed yourself.
He who does not work shall not eat. Food is not a human right. This is not a dangerous right-wing opinion, it is reality.
No.79052
>>79051
>He who does not work shall not eat.
Of course, that's not true in nature, which is mostly made of tasty plants and animals.
It's a human-made thing. Which means you just antirefuted the original pic.
No.79056
>>79052
>Of course, that's not true in nature, which is mostly made of tasty plants and animals.
And the animals don't have to be hunted down, and the plants don't have to be picked and selected, and all this raw food is super tasty and doesn't have to be cooked or otherwise prepared.
No.79059
>>79056
>and the plants don't have to be picked and selected, and all this raw food is super tasty and doesn't have to be cooked or otherwise prepared.
Also known as "shit you'd have to do if you just went to a grocery store."
No.79060
>>79051
>If you don't want to work for a boss you can work for another boss!
Wow very insightful
No.79073
>>79060
you can also kill yourself
No.79075
>>79073
stop reading Sartre
No.79084
>>79019
I know homeless hippies that make art out of trash they pull from around the city and they're happy with their lifestyle and earning decent cash to the point they use a gym for showering and can go bar hopping when they aren't couch surfing or living out of their van. That's the worst case example I can think of and they're still happy and living without a boss in a capitalist country. If you can't think of one of the millions of ways to make money without working for someone else, you deserve what you get. At most you might make an example of loan agencies when you start a business, but loan agencies for businesses were pretty much unheard of during the time when your ideology was flourishing/forming arguments.
No.79085
>>79037
This is one of those reasons I can never be a socialist. Socialists want to enslave me as a tradesman. Very few people become a tradesman because they necessarily love the profession ,(though most like their jobs of course) the underlying reason is that they need money to survive. Most tradesmen I've talked to in the field would abandon their job as anything more than a weekend hobby if they didn't need the money, and we already have a shortage of tradesmen. Socialists want to enslave me for their shitty ideology.
No.79089
>>78987
>nobody has to go to work in a Socialist/Communist society
>Being forced to pay taxes that support welfare when you have a job, public schooling when you have no children, rehabilitation programs when you are clean, and libraries in other cities isn't exploitation
The most moral society is the AnCap society. You pay for what you deserve, you are able to rise out of poverty, and you are given choices.
No.79095
>>79085
>I am enslaved because there is a credit union on the far side of the planet.
I dunno, have you been taking out loans?
>>79089
>Socialism is the US federal government.
No.
No.79098
No.79099
No.79106
>>79060
Yup. That's why ancap is shit as a philosophy… pretty precisely, too.
On the other hand, other people in the thread gave different answers. So, it's mostly picking the few out of the large pile of shit that needs to be flushed.
OTOH, so is everyplace else.
No.79110
>>79060
Work for yourself, or live in the woods and eat bits of tree bark. Don't whine at us just because you want to live in a modern society with all its comforts and not have to sell your labor.
No.79120
>>79110
Most of the whining is about "obstacles to eating tree bark."
No.79123
>>79120
>I have a right to free shit just because I was born
Fuck you. You don't get tree bark, you don't get anything. Existing does not grant anyone the right to stealing others shit just because they got pumped out of a woman.
No.79124
>>79123
>stealing others shit
Yup.
That's why we object to you stealing the tree bark they harvested.
Why are ancaps such fucking thieves?
No.79127
>79124
It's mostly "pile of shit" syndrome.
Rothbard : you harvested it, it's yours.
Ancap : Imma fuckin' rob you 'till you give me gibs.
Note the VAST difference.
No.79128
>>79124
>That's why we object to you stealing the tree bark they harvested.
>he thinks you own something just because you worked on it
lololo
No.79133
>>79124
Similarly…
Rothbard :
>Homesteading is awesome!
>>79128
>No, I want gibz!
Rothbard even rearranges the lockean proviso to state that homesteading limits itself to the minimal amount required for use. (Applications and criticism from the Austrian school., Rothbard, Murray, 1997). In ancapistan, you actually CAN primmie your way across other people's property. It's tearing down their house that's an issue.
The problem is that anCAPS sink below shit-tier anti-ancap memes. The philosophy itself, whole or flawed, right or wrong, still is a hell of a lot better than these (thieving) assholes.
No.79150
>>79133
> In ancapistan, you actually CAN primmie your way across other people's property.
In ancapistan you can do literally anything, its a matter of does the security force throw you in a hole for 20 years.
No.79151
>>78987
You have to hand it to the left they sure know how to propagandize. They can't directly attack the free market because they have no other alternative that will improve the material well-being of the public that holds up to serious scrutiny so they just call work "wage slavery" and "exploitation". The only basis for why they choose exploitation or slavery for their slander is because of the Labor Theory of Value, which isn't accepted by socialists because its assumptions are consistent with reality but just because it gives them some foundation for their demagoguery, even if its just a veneer of a theoretical foundation.
So I guess how I would refute this is just by saying the criticisms are meaningless.
No.79154
>>79151
Yea the right sure is good, always attacking state capitalism instead of communism, because they know that communist socialism is the only way to a fair society.
No.79155
>>79154
Well yeah, if everyone's dead you do have a sort of fairness. I'll give you that.
>m-muh state capitalism
Pic related.
>they know that communist socialism is the only way to a fair society.
Like clockwork, you've done exactly what >>79151 described: hiding behind meaningless, emotional buzzwords like "fairness" and "equality" instead of addressing the point staring you in the face: Your lunatic policies cannot and will not distribute resources more efficiently than prices, nor can they create an economy with a higher standard of living than free-market economies. If you can read and critique pdf related I'll be very surprised.
No.79156
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>79154
>>79155
>inb4 muh original Bolshevik principles!!11!
No.79157
>>79155
>the only way to a fair society
Everyone's equal in a nation of slaves.
No.79164
>>79157
More or less what I said, I just went to the cutting edge and replaced "slaves" with "dead."
No.79166
>>79154
>but it wasn't real capitalism tho!
No.79169
>>79155
>Pic related.
Of course, Marx was booted the fuck out at the First International, but sure, let's go with him, 'cause he's /ourguy/
No.79170
>>79169
>Marxism wasn't real communism
The memes just write themselves, don't they?
No.79174
>>79170
Never was. Never will be. M/ML is not left, and never has been.
Ever.
No.79175
>>79170
Eh, it's a two-part affair.
- their "ideology" has nothing to offer, so they have to focus on the "other."
- the "other" is pretty legitimate, so they have to focus on /theirguy/, ignoring the entire theory and action across several centuries while revolving around ignoring that literally EVERYONE left Marx's meeting to join the expelled at Saint Imier, because, well, he's… /theirguy/.
When all you have is a lie, lying is all you've got. So, that's what they do.
No.79176
>>79175
that was supposed to point to…
>>79174
@$@$#% typos.
No.79177
>>79174
Why do you people do this? Do you realize that today you are fighting for Zizek or whoever's your contemporary ideological leader, tomorrow you gain support and begin building socialism in your own country, then in the future when your socialist society ultimately fails, the next generations of communists will also pretend that everything you fought for didn't exist because "it wasn't real socialism".
Have some fucking respect for your comrades, like holy fuck, I'm no commie but seeing this kind of traitorous attitude pisses me off anyway.
No.79178
>>79174
And what is really left then?
No.79179
>>79177
You've inadvertently hit the socialist mindset on the head. I joked about Marx being called not a "real socialist," but the fact of the matter is it's irrelevant if today's commies identify with the Bolsheviks of old or not. With or without Marx's allegiance, or even existence, there will always be socialists. Just like for centuries before Marx ever picked up a pen, there were socialists, even if they didn't call themselves such. There's nothing original or groundbreaking about their ideas; there always has been a violent mob in politics demanding gibs for their own personal gain, under the pretense of fighting for "justice" of "equality." And there always will be a charismatic leader who uses their blind loyalty to obtain personal power, then gives them bread and circuses to shut them up. It doesn't matter if they call themselves Populares, Bolsheviks, Khmer Rouge, the People's Army, or Democratic Socialists.
>Have some fucking respect for your comrades, like holy fuck, I'm no commie but seeing this kind of traitorous attitude pisses me off anyway.
If they had the slightest respect for tradition, or for anything beyond gibs they wouldn't be socialists, anon.
No.79180
>>79179
Forgot my other pic
No.79181
>Then in the future when your socialist society ultimately fails
No, Marx's little purging of Leftists at the Hague - and everyone ditching him to hang out at St. Imier instead - is not "in the future."
It's not "in the future." It's "from the start." This is how it has always been, and the Left was strong for a couple thousand years, UNTIL Marx - who got rejected the minute he started up.
In a similar note, I respect the current Socialist International for a lot of things. I respect them for harboring refugees when Lenin exiled the socialists. I respect them for generally being a positive force on the earth. I do NOT respect them for being socialist, because they are generally Keneysian/Nordic capitalist.
That's RIGHT NOW, not in the future, and they haven't collapsed a damn thing.
Regarding Marx and Lenin… it has ALWAYS been this way. Marx got ditched when he started purging leftist - did you think the reference to the entire First International leaving him to go hang out with Bakunin at St. Imier was some sort of fluff comment?
Similarly, if I start referring to Hitler as a "great capitalist" because he staged a corporate takeover of Germany's industry, are you going to suddenly start advocating for wage and price controls, because capitalism?
>Have some fucking respect for your comrades, like holy fuck, I'm no commie but seeing this kind of traitorous attitude pisses me off anyway.
Concepts like "traitorous" don't really exist on the left. There is no "great leader," there is no superceding organization. Loyalty is to ideas, not people, not organizations, not leaders.
Familiar with market theory (which is hella to the left of capitalism, btw, due to its lack of a "great capitalist")? A bunch of individual people undertaking sporadic actions discover something invisible-but-deeper ~through~ their disagreement. Magnify or inhibit any part, and that process is distorted and fails, generally with deadweight loss. Collective decision theory? Same.
Loyalty is to the idea, the person can get fucked. We are an army of anarchs in an open disorganization of abject disunity.
As for Marx (and lenin), well… that rejection was IMMEDIATE. That ranting about Marx's utter rejection at the First International or Lenin's attacking a nine-month-old potentially-socialist government in October isn't fluff, it's historical fact. It has always been this way.
…but we will merc each other in a heartbeat to do what's right. That is our strength. Does hella well against bribery, btw, and disunity is a literal requirement for anarchism or socialism. (communism, otoh, is an economic theory and does not give a crap about your political organization)
The funny thing is, you'll get the "this is not the left" from two places : the left (which have always hated Marx and Lenin)… and MLs. Different character, but different (and opposed) movements and philosophies.
…meanwhile, the Left has survived the violence of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, and has superceded it.
No.79182
>>79178
>And what is really left then?
Check out some of the actual history. For imminently pre-Marxist (and contemporary) entities, you've got Fourier, Owen, Proudhon, Rochdale, etc. For a bit more expanded movements, you have the Diggers, pirate democracies, and the like. Going way back, you've got utopian Christian groups like the Essenes - and in fact, much of the Bible. A garden of abundance really is our natural inheritance.
The foundation is simple; no rulers, and no ruled. From this comes "no rules," since they require a ruler to impose them, so you often get anarchonudism or the early Christian socialists - a little free love, a little wandering around naked in a garden of plenty.
Purging leftists until everyone takes their ball and hangs out with the people you purged is… not this. 'n groups like the International Anarchist Federation are still prone to killing Marxists on sight because of this (though that, itself, could be a form of rulership).
No gods, no masters.
No.79184
>>79182
Being ruled by random fucks around you is the same end result. People are not equal, never will be, and almost everyone will always be dominated by someone. Its still being ruled if the person is not called a king.
No.79344
>>79006
Literally no one in a modern society can sustain themselves. How the fuck is a man supposed to produce electricity, food, clothes, housing, computers, software etc. without even having access to the resources that would be needed, EVEN if he had the skills to do all that?
No.79347
>>79344
>Literally no one in a modern society can sustain themselves
The division of labor is what makes a modern, technological society possible. Do you think engineers would be able to build as many bridges if they had to grow their own food and make their own tools from scratch?
>electricity, computers, software
Those are luxuries.
>food, clothes, housing
Basic food, shelter, and clothing is easy to make for yourself, even in the wilderness.
No.79351
>>79347
>The division of labor is what makes a modern, technological society possible. Do you think engineers would be able to build as many bridges if they had to grow their own food and make their own tools from scratch?
Not sure what your point is. You can't just repeat what I said and pretend you made an argument.
>Those are luxuries.
Computers and electricity is considdered a luxury? Are you from some third world country like USA?
>Basic food, shelter, and clothing is easy to make for yourself, even in the wilderness.
I think most people would prefer not living in the wilderness.
No.79375
>>79351
>Not sure what your point is
That if you want things to be easy and convenient, you're going to have to engage with the wider capitalist society in some way.
>commie thinks that a decent wifi signal is a human right
>I think most people would prefer not living in the wilderness
And most people either are willing to put up with capitalism if it means not having to be self sufficient or actually prefer it to other systems. For those who don't like the tradeoff, hermit life is always an option.
No.79376
>>79375
>That if you want things to be easy and convenient, you're going to have to engage with the wider capitalist society in some way.
Wrong, but I don't really want to get into that now. This conversation started with >>79006. How far are you going to move the goal post?
>commie thinks that a decent wifi signal is a human right
To engage in modern society you need internet. There's really nothing else to it.
No.79382
>>79376
I'm not >>79006, his opinions are not my own.
>To engage in modern society you need internet
Maybe in the first world, but it's a relatively recent development and there are plenty of places in the planet where that's not the case.
No.79383
>>79376
>Computers and electricity is considdered a luxury?
Yes
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luxury
>"something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary"
>To engage in modern society you need internet.
How so? My grandparents have an active social life but have never even used a PC.
No.79384
>>79382
You're really just agreeing with me.
>>79383
>"something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary"
So I guess more than one meal per week is a luxury?
>How so? My grandparents have an active social life but have never even used a PC.
Your grandparents are going to die soon though, and the people that are left behind will all be dependent on computers.
No.79386
>>79384
I don't see enough coherence in your argument for anyone to agree with you, you're just sperging about how computers aren't free.
No.79388
>>79386
I think what you retards fail to recognize is that you can't take my posts out of context. Fucking read the post I initially replied to.
No.79405
>>79384
Food is a requirement. Computers are not.
>people that are left behind will all be dependent on computers.
Not my parents and they have another 30+ years.
No.79550
>>79405
computer is a requirement to education and having fun
arent they basic human rights?
No.79555
>>79550
>I am entitled to free entertainment
No.79662
>>79555
Yeah, actually, it's called free entertainment.
Other poster is succdemmy as fuck. Probably right, though, since it's the most viable way to look up a voting record.
No.79678
>>79550
>He needs a computer to read a book
>He needs a computer to pick up sticks and fuck around with them
Nigga are you serious right now?
No.79681
>>79678
Well a lot of research is stowed away on website databases that you need to pay to enter sooooooooooooo
No.79686
>>79681
>waah I can't access articles written by academics for academics while being a NEET
>This one very specific article about genderqueer drones is absolutely vital to my education and the only way for me to get it is by my government giving me a computer
What kind of entitled little shit do you have to be to think not having free access to niche, scholastic databases is you being oppressed by muh capitalism?
No.79687
>>79686
>He thinks JSTOR is a feminist conspiracy
wew lad
No.79688
>>79681
Convenience =! Unavailability
No.79689
>>79687
>He can't recognize facetious exaggeration
>on an imageboard
No.79717
>>79681
Then it is, by definition, not research. Open publishing (and experimental reproduction) is an inherent part of the scientific method.
No.80091
>>79678
tbh in one scandinavian state there is right to internet in constitution
No.80094
No.80095
>>80091
>>80094
Writing shit down doesn't make it a right, anymore than erasing something makes it stop being a right.
No.80133
>>79005
But then the industrial revolution happened and ruined literally everything. Jefferson fucking hated the industrial revolution, and the more I think about, the more I realize the detractors that go along with the goods of an industrialized society.
Pros: Easily produced, easily purchasable goods. Better tech, better medical everything, etc.
Cons: Loss of self-sustainability (i.e. freedom), dependence upon the industrial complex for survival (fancy way of saying the same damned thing), and an overall loss of freedom in the mind, body, and soul (again, same fucking thing as the first damned thing I said).
No.80161
>>80133
There is nothing wrong with the industrial revolution, it is a great thing. What's wrong is the consumerist mentality that comes with it.
For example, look at any Jew out there, being the owners of factories, businesses, corporations, etc… they always encourage you to spend as much money as possible while they themselves would starve to save a few pennies if they found themselves in the same position as you.
The reason why poor people exist, is partly because markets aren't free (preventing people from earning money) and in the markets that are free, some people are too stupid to save money to buy their own means of production, and would rather pester their factory owner boss for higher wages.
No.80166
>>80133
>But then the industrial revolution happened and ruined literally everything.
Not the industrial revolution. These bad developments you outlined were not directly because of the availability of new and better machines and methods of production, at most indirectly as that made certain forms of cronyism attractice. But it wasn't cronyism that increased the population numbers and nearly caused a malthusian catastrophe that was barely averted by the factory owners.
Think of it like this: Everyone would've preferred life on a farm to life as a factory worker back then. Why couldn't they do what they preferred? Not because the factories existed, that merely gave them an option, but it didn't force them to take that option. That was due to such factors as the enclosures and the population growth.
No.80167
>>80095
It's actually how it works. What do you think, how rights come to be, do they fall from the sky or what?
No.80168
>>80167
Rights exist when you are able to effectively defend yourself against people who would deny you your rights. Rights stop existing when you are unable to do that. Rights do not come from a constitution, but I can see how you may have gotten confused: a constitutional right is a promise from the government that they will defend that right on your behalf. Nice in theory, but we all know how much a government promise is worth.
No.80176
>>80168
>Rights exist when you are able to effectively defend yourself against people who would deny you your rights.
Please prove that. The claim itself isn't interesting on its own.
No.80178
>>80133
>Industrial revolution ruined literally everything
Yes, the invention of automated machines that allowed workers to work 8-12 hours/day instead of 13-18 hours/day ruined literally everything anon. We should all get rid of our computers, printed books, mass-produced guns, and all other technology that was only possible because of the industrial revolution and go back to an agrarian lifestyle that can hardly be called above poverty because of that there evil industrial revolution that allowed us to reach a point where 3% of the population was capable of feeding the other 97% cheaply and at a profit. Brilliant.
No.80193
>>80178
>automated machines that allowed workers to work 8-12 hours/day instead of 0-2 hours/day
FTFY. You should read more around the abundant hunter-gatherer hypotheosis.
No.80195
>>80193
>civilization went from hunter-gatherer nomads to industrialization with no stops in between
Wew lad
No.80240
>>80176
What's to prove? Rights weren't delivered to humanity by some heavenly host, accompanied by much fanfare. Likewise, if you build the biggest microscope and zoom all the way in, you won't find "no step on snek" engraved on the side of every quark. Rights exist as shared values in a society. "Don't steal from me and I won't steal from you", etc.
No.80245
>>80240
>durr I can't see it so it don't real
Scientism is really fucking cancerous.
No.80246
>>80240
Your argument already presupposes its conclusion, that only what is empirically detectable can be said to be real. Classical petitio principii.
It is also self-defeating, because no matter how much we zoom into the material world, we will not find the laws of logic and reasoning that are presupposed in your very act of argumentation.
No.80305
>>80245
>I don't have an argument so I'll call it scientism
>>80246
The argument is consistent with its conclusion, rather than contradicting it.
Even though a particular is compatible with a universal, the universal cannot be deduced from the particular. So the existence of arguments do not necessarily imply the existence of logical laws.
No.80312
>>80245
>>80246
I'm genuinely surprised that what I said prompted this backlash. I didn't think I was saying anything even remotely controversial tbh. Well, if I'm so mistaken then tell me: where do rights come from?
No.80326
>>80305
>The argument is consistent with its conclusion, rather than contradicting it.
Not a response to my first objection:
>>80246
>Your argument already presupposes its conclusion, that only what is empirically detectable can be said to be real. Classical petitio principii.
You gave no response to that. And if what you said wasn't a response to that, but ot my second objection, then I'll get to it now.
So, back to your post:
>Even though a particular is compatible with a universal, the universal cannot be deduced from the particular. So the existence of arguments do not necessarily imply the existence of logical laws.
They do. You cannot make an argument if you challenge the law of non-contradiction, that A cannot be Not-A, which is at the basis of any logical system. Aristotle explained this at length. Argumentation also always presupposes that there are explanations to things, and hence the law of sufficient reason. Action, which includes argumentation, finally presupposes causality, and thus the principle of proportionate causality. And just like that, we have established solid laws of proper reasoning.
What you say about deducing universals from particulars misses the point. We are not looking for regularities in arguments, we are looking for what is necessary in any argument. We know that the aforementioned principles are necessary because an argument without them couldn't be called an argument.
No.80332
>>80240
In physics the concept of gravity is not physically provable because there is no underlying particle or property of matter to prove it, and it would take a particle accelerator the size of our solar system to theoretically produce the particle we believe controls it. Is gravity suddenly not real?
No.80341
>>80332
>In physics the concept of gravity is not physically provable
*drops pencil*
No.80342
>>80332
Gravity isnt controlled by particles. It's made by impressions of mass on spacetime.
No.80355
>>80332
See >>80341. If you can demonstrate its effects, it's quite clearly real, even if you don't have a better explanation for where it comes from than "it just does, okay". The same is true for rights: if there are people that value a right, and are willing to defend that right both for themselves and others, that right clearly exists. For example, the right to life: general opinion towards murder is overwhelmingly negative, and there exist organisations that will attempt to prevent murder from occurring (or at least seek retribution on behalf of the victim if it could not be prevented). The right to not be murdered is real. Consider also the right to walk around in public wearing a hot dog costume and yodelling, and not have people stare at you: people will generally not see anything wrong with staring at the weirdo, and there's likely not anyone who would bother to intervene. That right is not real, because there is nobody who will uphold that right, and nobody who even considers it to be a right at all.
Of course, positive rights still aren't rights, even when all of society considers them to be, since they simultaneously require and disincentivise a particular behaviour. People can sit around claiming that they have a right to computers and electricity all they want, but it won't do them any good if they've already chased off everybody who produces those things. It's a fair generalisation to just skip to the end and assume that the whole thing will fall apart, leaving nobody with the thing that they all supposedly have a right to.
No.80359
>>80341
>>80355
I suppose you'll justify that mice are born from hay and snapping turtles from rotting logs next following that silly line of logic.
No.80360
>>80359
And salamanders are born from fire
No.80398
>>80326
I don't see why you think that the microscope thought experiment implies empiricism. The use of an instrument does not imply the existence of pure empirical information without theory. The use of logic does not imply the existence of pure thought either. Rights refer to all sorts of things, so whether there are any depends on what they're supposed to be.
It's true that in every argument, A is not not-A, but this does not imply that the law is the basis. The other possibilities, that it's the arguments that are the basis, or that they both arguments and laws together are equally basic, are equally valid.
No.80433
>>80359
>>80360
You're gonna need to explain that little non-sequitur there, unless you're content to rest your entire argument on some frustrated reeee-ing and a passive-aggressive internet-tough-guy gif.
No.80434
>>80332
>In physics the concept of gravity is not physically provable
In science, on the other hand, absolutely nothing is proveable and things are merely instead… falsifiable.
No.80437
>>80434
You are technically correct in that you repeated a portion of the scientific methodology, but you still missed the point of what he was trying to say. Yes, in science we call things "not falsified" rather than "proven" to reinforce the notion that our model, and the reasoning given for it, are only as good as our most current observations, the precision and scope of which changes over time. But the fact that the model can change over time doesn't eliminate the fact that some aspects of it are more well-rooted in theory than others. With electromagnetism, for instance, all of the observations have a theoretical basis. We have the concept of charges, we have a base unit of charge, and we know the fundamental particles that create those charges. From these conceptual, a priori principles we've created mathematical predictive theories, and the conceptual stuff explains why the equations take the forms they do–there's good reasoning for why it's an inverse-square law, the permeability constant is calculated from other universal constants, et cetera. In contrast, gravity, despite having a solid mathematical foundation in the realm of classical physics, has no such basis. We know it's caused by mass, but not why. It follows an inverse-square law, but not at the galactic scale, so we make up dark matter to make the math work. The gravitational constant isn't rooted in anything theoretical, we calculated it experimentally from known data and algebra. Hell, we only proved the existence of gravity waves a handful of years ago, and we have no concept of a "graviton", a gravity-causing particle, except in the sense that it's a quantum of gravity waves. Gravity, despite being undoubtedly real and predictable (on some scales) through math, has no theoretical, a priori basis, and thus it's not provable.
No.80439
>You are technically correct
…which is generally the best kind of correct when discussing science.
You may have falsified inverse-square models to the microdegree of precision that Einstein, for instance, falsified Newton. Or, maybe there actually is a small amount of dust that is hard to see.
Those are two competing hypotheoses. You now have to figure out a way to falsify them each, and test this, to spare either the fate of being… not-even-wrong.
No.80442
>>80439
>…which is generally the best kind of correct when discussing science.
But not when using science as an analogy for nothing else, and not at the expense of missing the forest for the trees.
No.80448
>>80433
Basing things solely on observable logic leads to very skewed logic. Look up Spontaneous Generation. It took humans approximately 2,000 years to realize that it was wrong when some Italian Naturalist (Francesco Redi) put cheesecloth over jars of rotting meat and left them out on a shelf for a couple weeks. It actually took an autist carefully coming up with experiments that would sterilize containers without cutting off air flow to finally prove spontaneous generation was a crock of shit about a century later.
Also >>80437 did a good job as well in regards to the gravity thing.
No.80451
>>80448
Fair enough, I don't dispute that. However, I still don't understand how any of this science posting relates to the idea that rights exist in the mind and are projected onto the world through people's actions, instead of being fixed concepts that exist independently of people.
No.80458
>>80442
it's an older meme sir, but it checks out
No.80710
>>80439
he did not falsify newton
No.80714
>>80710
You, too, are technically correct; the differences in theoretical prediction, once tested, did.
…but his theory still kicked newton's out.
No.80795
No.80819
>>80795
It did, he demonstrated Newton's theories broke down in relativistic conditions, and that they were just an approximation that happened to be very, very accurate within the limits of inertial mechanics.
No.80851
>>80819
Newtonian physics still see some use because they're so accurate for nonrelativistic stuff.
No.80964
>>79156
>tom woods
cringe, kill yourself degenerate trailer trash
No.80976
>>80851
>an approximation that happened to be very, very accurate within the limits of inertial mechanics
That's what I meant to address with this.
No.80979
>>80819
newton did not say his theory is legitimate in relativistic conditions did he?
No.80982
>>80979
Newton's laws were general theories of motion. As such, they were implied to describe all motion, including motion while going really fast (i.e., relativistic conditions). Newton didn't specify that his were only accurate below a given fraction of c, and no scientist assumed otherwise until we stated recording data which disagreed with what Newtonian physics predicted. So yes, it's accurate to say that Newton's laws broke down.
No.81036
>>80982
i was told otherwise by chemistry phd woman but ok
No.81060
>>81036
>i was told otherwise by [..] woman
Found your problem
No.81315
>>81036
>has chemistry phd
>speaks with authority about relativistic physics
No.81322
>>81036
>(((woman)))
You should kill yourself, you giant cuck.
No.81326
>>81036
She probably hasn't taken a class in physics since her undergrad, and even then there's no reason to believe she went further than E&M. People that use their PhD to pull rank on irrelevant shit are cancer.
No.81339
>>81322
u dont even have phd