favorite anarchistic philosopher

What you are referring to are INALIENABLE RIGHTS which is humans have the RIGHT to do anything and are naturally born with these abilities... there is no "law" because its NATURAL that we can do all these things, but "laws" restrict what we can do afterwards.

heres just a quick overview of inalienable or natural rights...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

 

oh...shit...never mind then....

 

Finished reading At the Cafe (Conversations on Anarchism) - Errico Malatesta. What a fantastic read. What a fantastic method of explanation of the anarchistic point of view. An uncomplicated read as well. If you haven't read this book I highly recommend it. Get yourself a copy from www.bookdepository.co.uk or make a search on the net. It discusses property and ownership, the role of women, proprietors, workers rights, revolution and direct violent action together with a whole lot more.

 

I dont give a fuck what NGNM85 and the others agree is Anarchistic or not, Fuck the Nazi's and everything they stand for and if you are for the Nazi's freedom of speech then fuck you too!!! The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Tired of this whole internet debate you fucks....while you're on here debating 'till your blue in the fucking face, real hate is happening in this bullshit country. What the fuck are you doing about it???????Other than mental masturbating the topic to death you dumb fucks??? This isn't hypothetical this hate is real. Are you an Anarchist or are you an internet Wanker?? Direct Action. Direct Action. Direct Action. Direct action. Fuck you, Direct Action. If you don't know what that means, ask a real Anarchist.....DIRECT ACTION!!!!!!!!

 

Ungovernable you are seriously irritating, WE ALL THINK IT IS OKAY TO BEAT UP NAZIS. Get that into your head. We are on your side, you just don't see it because either you don't understand what we're saying, or you don't read what we say.
Of course people technically can murder or rape people....that doesn't mean they should nor that we should allow them. I'm just pointing out that it happens. It's not so profound or crazy if you just stopped and read what I said. It's only ridiculously obvious.

This sums up what I think of "rights", I don't think they exist. You can have a declaration saying "nobody should be subjected to torture" etc. and while I agree completely with these "rights", these things STILL HAPPEN. They don't mean anything in my opinion. People still do these things because they disagree with the rights.
I think if there are rights, that everybody has to agree to them. In my opinion, that will never happen (in this society at least) therefore they don't exist.
That does not mean that personally, I will go and torture people etc. I personally believe that torture is wrong, but other people do not. So what's the point in having them? If I think it's wrong to torture and somebody else doesn't and I end up being tortured, can I start shouting I have a right not to be tortured when that person believes I have a right TO be tortured.

As George Carlin said, "they're not rights if somebody can just take 'em away". Sure they are things we all should have, but we don't.

 

I think Anarchofem had a fucking fantastic point.

What are rights? Secular? Bullshit, they are firmly rooted in the Christian ethical hangover of the 'Enlightenment'. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is inherently Liberal, thus comes with all the issues attached with Liberalism. Capitalism, Patriarchy, entrenched racism, colonialisation, homophobia, et al, have all been allowed by Liberalism to flourish.

Further, the definitions of what is a 'natural right' are ridiculous, and they relies on bollocks philosophical thought experiments to be justified. Whether that be God granting us our rights; the 'social contract' (one in which i signed up to at birth apparently); Rawls' 'original position' or whatever. They have no basis in reality.

As an anarchist, I would say that 'rights' have no basis outside of the social context under which they operate. My values are socially produced as much as resources or social wealth are. Therefore, i find it difficult to understand why ppl are arguing for the reactionary position of defending ppl on the basis of 'human rights'. Human rights have no basis in reality, they are merely a Liberal feel-goodism, designed to give a 'humane' face to Capitalist hegemonic power. Ppl would have the right in an anarchist society to partake in democratic and non-coercive political debate and discussion. Fascism falls outside these parameters, it is inherently anti-social and violent, therefore we have a right as a community to respond (and yes, to silence!) this type of speech.

 

EXACTLY BUTCHER! That is all I am saying! Thank you so much for actually understanding, seriously! You explained it a lot better than me also!

 

wow... and here I thought the topic was ACTUALLY about anarchist philosophers.
No offence meant to punkmar, I think he's a fucking good dude, but this post seems to sum up what this thread seems to have turned into and the only solution for it.
I mean... FUCK...

 

aww shucks

 

Okay, just a question... how do you suggest stopping them from talking??? If you do stop them from talking you are only exercising YOUR "rights". Therefore we are all on the same page. They have the "right" to try and speak and you have the "right" to try and stop them from doing so.
Which really makes this whole argument so pointless.

 

This shows that YOUR the internet wanker at this point in time. Im pretty sure that your not beating up nazi's and hateful people right now (which is direct action). And it seems your advocating violence against these types of people... im down, but im not prejudice, fuck this whole race, annihilate fucking everyone!

You see... your never going to kill hate, hate speech and racism as long as man is alive. For every one nazis that is killed or beat up, there are people that that bonehead goes to to make them sympathize for that person, thus you have about 4 to 5 more racists for the cause of one being beating or not (JUST LIKE THE IDEA OF TERRORISM)

 

So, beating up nazis does nothing but turn them into martyrs? Ok...
Maybe instead we should just ignore them and maybe they will go away.

Seriously, the aim of physical confrontation with fascists is not to beat up all racist ppl around or whatever, but instead to undermine their ability to organise. ie, by ensuring they can't hold public rallies, walk freely in groups around the street harrassing ppl, etc. Of course, this can take many different forms. Primarily, this means fighting them politically, undermine their bullshit arguments about social ills, etc. But if they are well organised and large enough to have a physical presence on our streets, then they must, literally, be kicked off them.

 

Well... if you ignore them, they wont go away... And to undermine their ability to organize etc. etc. is all good and all, but there still racists and there still going to tell some impressionable young person to hate someone because of their color and what they say etc. etc. and i agree that needs to stop (though i believe in their right to think like a piece of shit and thats all im saying about it). But then again im against human existence in general so.

 

Wow, i'm away one day at a reclaim and i get back to find this thread even more fucked up then it was before, wich i didn't really think was possible.
You can be damn sure i've thought about rights and what it is but i would rather say i have the right to not get raped and no one has the right to rape anyone, so how can a selfproclaimed feminist say rapists has the right to be rapists? Doubt you have any experience of that kind if you can say that. That's just as stupid as saying nazis has the rights to do what they do. To not get anyone confused here again and say i don't have the balls to say out clearly who i refer to, this would be aimed at anarchofem...

 

Yeah, theres really fuck all anyone can do about what ppl think, racist dicks are always gunna be racist dicks. Their influence on impressionable youth would be somewhat a matter of context tho methinks, hence why i advocate primarily fighting them politically. Further, whilst i cant make a racist not be a racist, i can stop them organising as one.

 

Anom you're completely missing my point. I was saying we DON'T have rights. This doesn't make me happy or anything. I'm just stating it.
Unfortunately, people do go and rape people, kill people etc. That does not mean I condone it, I'm just stating that IT HAPPENS. And that having "rights" doesn't stop it from happening.

My point just was that often people do what they fucking want, regardless of what rights you believe you have. And that is something very UNFORTUNATE.

Of course I don't think people should rape, what the heck, when did I even kind of suggest that I think people should do that? All I am saying is what the fuck do rights really mean if you're the person unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of something like that. FUCK ALL in my opinion.

As an added note, I think if you have been the victim of rape, you have the "right" to do whatever the fuck you want to that dirty scumbag.

 

Oh and you doubt I have any experience of that kind, fuck that...one of my fucking friends was raped. So don't fucking assume I don't. She didn't deserve that. But it STILL happened and still does happen. My point is that that fucker didn't recognise the same "right" most of us do and if people don't recognise them, then in my mind they don't exist. How can they? It's like one person saying, I deserve not to be raped (obviously) and some ass saying you deserve to be raped...and raping that person. I mean where does the "right" come in there??? It means nothing. At the end of the day people do what they want, and I'm not happy with that but it's true. And I would never defend that behaviour. EVER.

But it works both ways like I said in my previous post, if something like that happens, you can do what you fucking want too.

People SHOULD have rights, i.e. certain things that they are entitled to, but that's not the case. How could you even argue that it is the case?