The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will...

Ok, but since anything can potentially cause harm to others, it's not a very useful definition. Just look at a triggered tumblrite, they will get hurt over anything.

Also might makes right.

No it's not a spook. Believing and enforcing a common group of rights is in most people's best interest, especially yours and mine. It's not a spook by definition because it is serving us, not the other way around.
That wasn't the subject. Yes, everyone knows the man with the gun can tell you to do whatever he wants, the point is does he have any legitimacy in doing so. If he has no legitimacy then people are going to feel inclined to tell him to fuck off rather than doing nothing.
A person cannot harm another through inaction unless that person has a preexisting responsibility for that person or that situation. Something else is harming them and they're simply doing nothing about it.

>Also might makes right.
Not to demean you user, but that's such a euphoric fucking statement. It's always vague and either misses the point of the discussion or makes the person assume that you literally mean the person with the power is morally superior for having that power.

>property isnt a spook because it benefits everyone
t. not spookbuster

Define rightful.
What is deemed rightful by one may be considered utterly wrong by another. There is no objective "right" and thus the statement is simply a statement of opinion.

With enough power you could mold society's views to find whatever you do rightful. Brainwash them to think you're literally God and everything you do is just and righteous.
That, is why might makes right. There are no objective morals.

>most people's
Which ones?

>us
Spook.

settle down satan
so if I took your money you wouldn't act? who decides who owns what? who decides whether to spend money on chemotherapy or the orphanage

For every action there is a possibility that one person is a winner and the other is a loser who gets harm. To prevent this can be harm to the winner, to not prevent it is harm to the loser. You can't always save both parties.

State manage too much people, the good of one is the bad of a thousand innocent, state are beyond individual moral.

>the point is does he have any legitimacy in doing so.
What gives him legitimacy?
Not him, but that's retarded.
That's just gonna make them hung you by your entrails, if the political climate allows it, or failing that, pay lip service to your bullshit, while finding their own secret ways between themselves to give you the middle finger. See North Korea, or chinese using llamas and goats to say "fuck the Party".
Seriously, even mobsters and gang bosses know you need to be generally be nice to the people you rule over.
Why is it always internet tough guys that fail to understand that and go full "DUUUUR, THE STRONG EXIST RULE AND CRUSH THE WEAK. WAAAGH" edgy retardism?

>to prevent harm to others.
Which you can use to justify anything from "don't kill people" to "don't wear red, it aggravates people" to "stop breathing, you're using up other people's air". Thus, it's totally meaningless.

It's actually near impossible to live in today's society, without harming others, however indirectly or indeliberate that often is.

That innocence is not a shield,
A story teaches, not the longest.
The strongest reasons always yield
To reasons of the strongest.

A lamb her thirst was slaking,
Once, at a mountain rill.
A hungry wolf was taking
His hunt for sheep to kill,
When, spying on the streamlet's brink
This sheep of tender age,
He howl'd in tones of rage,
'How dare you roil my drink?
Your impudence I shall chastise!'
'Let not your majesty,' the lamb replies,
'Decide in haste or passion!
For sure 'tis difficult to think
In what respect or fashion
My drinking here could roil your drink,
Since on the stream your majesty now faces
I'm lower down, full twenty paces.'
'You roil it,' said the wolf; 'and, more, I know
You cursed and slander'd me a year ago.'
'O no! how could I such a thing have done!
A lamb that has not seen a year,
A suckling of its mother dear?'
'Your brother then.' 'But brother I have none.'
'Well, well, what's all the same,
'Twas some one of your name.
Sheep, men, and dogs of every nation,
Are wont to stab my reputation,
As I have truly heard.'
Without another word,
He made his vengeance good--
Bore off the lambkin to the wood,
And there, without a jury,
Judged, slew, and ate her in his fury.

I'd say that NK's dictatorship is pretty successful, they've been here for 68 years. I've known shorter democracies. And being nice is no guarantee, as we can see with the recent terrorist attacks in Europe.

You never tried to justify it in the first place, just stating it instead.

Why should someone follow this principle? How does it deal with vague/indirect forms of "harm" like second hand smoke or pollution?

>I'd say that NK's dictatorship is pretty successful, they've been here for 68 years.
The only reason they still exist is because the entire region is propping their shitty regime above water, so they won't have to deal with tons of refugees flooding China, worst Korea and everyone else.
So, yeah being a brutal dictatorship has kept them well into power, it's just done so by being too atrociously poor and shitty to remove.
Stronk!
>And being nice is no guarantee, as we can see with the recent terrorist attacks in Europe.
Our reaction to the crisis has actually deflated a lot of ISIS propaganda.

speaking of ISIS, their brutality has led them to beg people to come live in their territory, since everyone there has left because of their "let's maim, kill, burn everything until they agree with us" attitude.

Well, from a purely machiavellian perspective it worked wonderfully. Why should the juche care? They don't live in poverty and can have a brainwashed virgin peasant girl in their bed every night.

I do think that ISIS attacks are intended mainly fuel for their propaganda machine, since they aren't so lucky on the battlefield and need visible successes not to bleed to death to other organizations.
But before ISIS we had the anni di piombo, various independantists movements,... IIRC there hasn't been a single year without multiple terrorist attacks in Europe since the '50s?

>They don't live in poverty and can have a brainwashed virgin peasant girl in their bed every night.
They live in almost first world standards, as the political elite. While our political elite live like kings.
>IIRC there hasn't been a single year without multiple terrorist attacks in Europe since the '50s?
And what has that resulted in?
Now, Catalonia wanting to separate, by appealing to the local's pockets, on the other hand...

>And what has that resulted in?
demonstrating that being nice is no guarantee for not being hated by people to the point of them wanting to hang you by your entrails, if the political climate allows it, or failing that, pay lip service to your bullshit, while finding their own secret ways between themselves to give you the middle finger.

nah, those are minor from a illegal fringe group that happen sometimes, not the way the gov handles things.
And nowadays you can have a pretty good idea who hates you. And if they hate you, the worst that happens(outside some loonie like Breivik doing stuff that actually makes people rally to the group they targeted, more) is writing mean things on the internet, booing you, and people complaining about your decisions before getting another beer and watching their TV show, or voting for the other guy next time.
Or multinational wise, shit like Brexit and trade embargoes.

You're mostly likely just memeing but that is the definition of something not a spook. Spooks are abstractions that you serve at the expense of your own interests, not just any abstractions at all.
>Which ones?
The majority of people, the ones who just want to be left alone and not bother or be bothered.
I'm not the one saying property is a spook.
>What gives him legitimacy?
That's what the thread is debating. I believe no one has legitimacy to do anything to anyone unless they're protecting their own "rights" or acting as a proxy and protecting the rights off others.
It's not a rule to live by, it's just stating what is the only legitimate use of power.