Might as well stick with bullshit then.

VersoBubba, You mean this whole financial crisis was just to make the Fords grovel for money? That’s soooo cool!

Actually in third grade I learned that history is bunk.

Good point. You see, all Native Americans held the exact same beliefs, and none of them—poor things—understood that an individual or group could have exclusive rights in a particualr piece of land. Just like we learned in 3rd grade. Yup.

Not in most Anglo countries. Theft is

“Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;”

No other owner, no theft.

Well, under your morals what originally creates ownership, the Divine Right of Kings?

Well, you’ve certainly illustrated THAT point.

Ok, you’ve got me there…y damn tin ear for justice…

“There is no justice, there’s just us. And when fallible human beings start thinking they can institute a reign of absolute justice, they end up doing more harm than good.”

This is a false disjunctive: either rights talk or totalitarianism. Indeed, a “reign of absolute justice” becomes a bit nonsensical once we give up rights talk. Though I agree that rights talk is very practical when talking to the simpleminded. But this discussion wasn’t about the best rhetorical strategies for persuading the public or making political progress—it was about what center-right means and whether the US is so or not, which might mean talking like grownups about the way things are, not the way we wish they were.

At 22:

“But seriously, how could the Native Americans have had their land stolen when then didn’t believe anyone could own the land? You can’t steal what someone doesn’t own, right?”

You want to think that one through, Immanuel? Theft is taking what does not belong to you. If nobody owns it, to claim and enforce ownership is, morally speaking, theft.

Socrates’ much maligned politics is usually deeply misinterpreted. Justice is harmony: every note in its place makes a song. By definition, if someone doesn’t belong somewhere, then they do not so belong. That’s neither elitism nor totalitarianism. To refuse your mechanic’s offer to perform your heart surgery isn’t withholding any rings from anybody, Frodo.

As for Plato, are you referring to the part where Socrates says that Justice is keeping the Ring as far away from burritoboy as possible?

But seriously, how could the Native Americans have had their land stolen when then didn’t believe anyone could own the land? You can’t steal what someone doesn’t own, right?

Go and read where Socrates tells you what justice is.

There is no justice, there’s just us. And when fallible human beings start thinking they can institute a reign of absolute justice, they end up doing more harm than good. You’ll either realise that sooner or later, or go to your grave convinced that if only people had listened to you, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Fine, whatever floats your boat. But to reiterate, you’re wasting your time.

And friend Zen, snappy quote, but a little dated. I remember a fun book by Murray Bookchin, “Post-Scarcity Anarchism”, which related how everything after the revolution would be wonderful, now that industrial society had developed the ability to give us anything we wanted. A remarkable achievement to miss the goal at both ends – ‘needs’ are infinitely expandable, but the resources of the Earth are not, alas…

“From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”

Sounds like raising a family. Hmm, so I guess justice is being a family.

So rights aren’t a perfect protective; but the historical evidence is that they make things much much better.”

The “Communists killed more people” argument isn’t as compelling as you seem to think it is.

First, the “rights-talk” crowd simply tended to completely fall down on the job when they encountered opportunities to make some cash or hold power (usually the holding power thing as a necessity to make some more cash) – if the Indians’ property rights get in the way of making some cash by peddling the land to Eastern European and Scots Irish agriproles, those Indians’ property rights are going to be thrown against the wall. And the “rights-talk” people aren’t going to do anything about it, except maybe write books decrying it a hundred years later. Let’s admit it, unless you got your property deed from God or Adam, all property-rights (usually) are is one form or another of “my ancestors killed off the other people who wanted this land/property/etc.”

“People who continue to believe otherwise, and might choose to use phrases about the antebellum South like “extensive brutal internal security apparatuses including political gulags”, have taken themselves so far outside the mainstream that they are almost literally talking to themselves, and themselves alone.”

I.E. Dave implicitly declares that he’s going to defend the property he stole from American Negroes by violent force, and if you don’t like it, he’ll either:
a. kill you and burn your house down
b. (more nicely) organize a political movement ensuring that his “property rights” to what he stole will be “defended”. Of course, that political movement will always inherently rely upon the possibility that Dave will simply perform plan A if you don’t give him what he wants when he executes plan B (or rather, if the Negroes don’t give up their evil habit of mentioning that Dave stole their property and that his talk of property rights is just completely incoherent).

Thanks, Dave, for admitting that you and I agree: both of us agree that property rights as currently understood are (usually) nothing more than solidifying previous acts of violence. Of course, we differ in that you don’t really think there’s any such thing as justice, and I do think there’s justice and want a just state.