Reminder that the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant rights to anyone or anything...

Reminder that the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant rights to anyone or anything, it merely recognizes the inalienable birthrights of all people. The document itself is necessary because rights only exist as far as they can be protected, and since humans are collectivist retards they require pieces of paper to tell them what they should stand for.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iG0HsKXiUwk
youtube.com/watch?v=mNzF0kmeo_8
youtube.com/watch?v=2QOhKVvfXD8
michaelsavage.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

why would ancap kill Hitler? He's on their side.

>authoritarian leader who abuses businesses for the ends of the state
>on the side of anarchocapitalists who want no state and total control by corporations
i'm not on either side (though I'm decently close to le ancap meme) but seriously it's not hard to see

...

ameriSHITS

Are people unironically trying to be Anarchist and capitalists at the same time?

>ancrap
>real anarchism
ebin

Is there any other kind?

>authoritarian leader who abuses businesses for the ends of the state
Yes but not all businesses, just the ones which competed with his backers.

>support me and do what I say or the state will take over your business

>Reminder that the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant rights to anyone or anything

Correct.

>it merely recognizes the inalienable birthrights of all people

Partially correct insofar as the Constitution carries into practice the establishment of a permanent government which the Declaration, which did correctly identify certain of the inalienable birthrights of all people, ultimately necessitated in practice by implication. Partially incorrect in that rights themselves are much more immediately described in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights (if we hold that the latter is a distinct item from the Constitution, for discussion).

>The document itself is necessary because rights only exist as far as they can be protected

Technically incorrect but practically correct. You always had and have the rights, exactly because they are inalienable. This reduces to certain ethical, normative, and correct statements "you should be able to do x", "you should not do y", etc. The document(s) are not necessary to your actual posssion of the rights, but they are useful to socially ensure that the already-existent rights are generally respected, and not violated. Of course it's true that if your rights can be trampled, then in practice your possession of them is a moot point, that's true, and is a better articulation of what this clause was trying at. But it is also academically true that you had, and have them, all along.

The crux of this correct interpretation of things is that your rights come from Almighty God. Not from pieces of paper, or from the state. Happily, it may happen that certain papers and states accord to what God has granted - albeit to a greater (USA) or lesser (indians, slavery) extent.

Rights are and have always been enumerated promises from authorities.

Very well written. I did not mention God in the OP because of the sperg fedoras on this board but yes, our rights are endowed by our Creator, whoever that may be.
Enumerate my dick in your mom's ass bitchboy
>pic related is me

Natural rights do not exist

>birthrights
>real
There's two ways to get anything in life, you either fight for it or are given it, and rights are no exception

>ancap turns out to be the more spooked that actual statism
Oh wow you could have thought of that

>you
who

>>on the side of anarchocapitalists who want no state and total control by corporations
Nazi Germany was basically one giant company

Nazi Germany was effectively under total corporate control/influence.

Mises wasn't an ancap though. Rothbard was though, and his followers have essentially hijacked Mises' name.

If the boss violates the NAP, his golden parachute is being tossed off the top of the building without a parachute

...

>My boss decides-

The contract is a mutual agreement on the conditions of the work relation, nobody is forcing you to take that job, if you don't like it, negotiate

...

>nobody is forcing you to take that job, if you don't like it, negotiate
Are you 12?

>Rothbard was though

>Nazi Germany was effectively under total corporate control/influence.

It was the other way around actually.

>Upon the 1933 Machtergreifung, the new Nazi government interfered, and the new Reichskommissar of Aviation, Hermann Göring, (who allegedly had unsuccessfully applied as a test pilot in the early 1920s) aimed to make Junkers a tool of German re-armament. The Nazi authorities immediately demanded ownership of Hugo Junkers' patents and the majority of shares of his remaining companies. Under threat of imprisonment, he eventually acquiesced, to little avail; a year later, he was under house arrest and was finally forced to leave Dessau. He died on 3 February 1935 in Gauting near Munich.

If you were in the private sector and for whatever reason didn't deep throat NSDAP cock, that was often enough to earn you a stint in Dachau

economic coercion is now a mutual agreement?

>If you were in the private sector and for whatever reason didn't deep throat NSDAP cock, that was often enough to earn you a stint in Dachau
>implying bourgeois would have loyalty to anything but their property

Man has no rights, in general. What rights man has come from the cumulative efforts of other men; the idea that a sheet of paper "grants" rights is lunacy, as is the idea that anything can protect popular rights other than the populace itself, as is the idea that the rights people possess come from "nature" and not Man.

>the Constitution of the United States of America does not grant rights to anyone or anything, it merely recognizes the inalienable birthrights of all people.

TFW God standing right behind you...

youtube.com/watch?v=iG0HsKXiUwk

Yup. Pol hivemind rejected them from the herd so theyre mostly gone in the current year

sorry?

"Natural rights" are nonsense as fact, but useful concepts to manage the weak-willed.

just some LARPer from /pol/

do you literally live in a third world shithole? you can talk to any employer and adjust your work conditions in a modern western country. In America itself, unless you're an untrained, unskilled bum you can find a sweet job if you look hard enough and are willing to move and make connections.

Socialists/collectivists are the ones that can't be anarchist, capitalism is voluntary.

They won't admit it, and those who do don't call themselves ancaps

Capitalism requires a rule of law and a legal recognition of property rights to exist in an objective fashion. Without it, there is no objective reason to recognize property rights, and might will make right (meaning, people will simply choose not to recognize property rights when it is not convenient, so long as they have more people on their side than the owners of said property). In order to have property rights, you must have a majority that recognizes these rights as law, which must in turn lead to the creation of an entity made to enforce these laws. In other words, anarcho-capitalism is government by another name.

socialism, on the other hand, requires the government to get bigger and bigger atop a pile of dead bodies.

So, in reality, all of anarchism is literally impossible, a pipe dream for the optimistic, who believe that human nature is a choice.

It's literally the "just don't call it government, bro" approach to government

>Junkers was a socialist and a pacifist. For these reasons, he had several occasions to cross swords with German leadership. In 1917, the government forced him into partnership with Anthony Fokker to ensure wartime production targets would be met.
>During the 1920s in Germany and among Junkers' employees, a wide spectrum of political views was present. About every aspect of the business and of its environment, there were differing opinions. For members of all the many groups represented in Junkers, aviation offered hope for national renewal. Their varied views led to lively internal corporate politics. In 1926, unable to make government loan repayments after a failed venture to build planes for the USSR, he lost control of most of his businesses. In 1931, he appointed Adolf Dethmann, a communist activist, as Managing Director of what remained of his business.

The man didn't want to be an enabler of genocidal mass murder, he just wanted to build airplanes.

define human nature

"principles are fine until I can sell them for social status"

youtube.com/watch?v=mNzF0kmeo_8

>ancap doesnt understand markets
labor market is always saturated as fuck because workers are too disorganized to negotiate.

Yet a rule of law requires an institution capable of enforcing itself over whatever a sole private individual's assets and private institutios can oppose, and thus by necessity it means there has to be a bigass govt institution with hands both in security and intelligence with no institutional opposition whatsoever
Considering that such forces would exist in several countries, plus the corruption, gross capital and resource acumulation on the hands of a minuscule group of privates et, etc. How do you impede a gigantic world wide series of conflicts that leave last century's imperial wars look like tribal shitflinging?
What stops said institutions from just taking over and destitute whatever freedoms your meme minarchis can barely guarantee?

Anarcho Capitalism is the only kind of anarchism that's not an oxymoron.

Yes, because the fine for trespassing would be pretty low (if it even exists on the first place), since you are doing the greater good and that would be taken into account by the jury or even the property owner.

Why does the left suck so much at making memes?

>rights only exist as far as they can be protected
>inalienable birthrights of all people
hmmmmm

Junkers also got kicked out of "his" company.

I like this kind of Anarchism.

Rights are spooks, and ancaps are silly children.

t. former ancap who grew out of it at age 17

>Anarcho Capitalism is the only kind of anarchism that's not an oxymoron.
But "Anarcho" Capitalism is literally neofeudalism

If the boss violates the NAP will have body guards and paid jury to defend him just in case. and then, what do you can do? call to the nonpolice™ of the nonstatal forces™?

...

Unless it is a government of, by, and for the people.

Aren't the people the authorities then?

so ok someone answer me this, in an ancap society if you have to protect your own property, because there is no state to do it for you, then what is preventing a guy with a ton of money from comming to your house with a private army, killing your whole family, and taking your house, i mean it's not like you can do anything about it, who protects in ancapistan?

Your equally powerful boss who protects you because he profits off of you and you stay alive because you work for him.

>Anarcho Capitalism is the only kind of anarchism that's not an oxymoron

Because isn't anarchism

so this pic

The Stat- errr I mean, the coalition of independent provinces you belong to who have an agreement to use their militias (training and equipment paid for but the "rents" of the people living on their land) to protect one another on times of distress.

>forgetting that classical libertarians were the left wing
So if the government is the people than anything wrong the government does to the people is actually self harm? If we vote to kill all redheads but the government is the people, including the redheads, than the redheads were not murdered but they actually committed suicide. This is whole government of the people argument is retarded.
Your private army and the fact that you are now liable (or your family if you get killed) to take reparations from the aggressor. In an ancap society you can give the right to take reparations from your aggressor to another person. So you would go to private court or another private army and say "I'll let you have 80% of the guys money if you take vengance for me". Both you and the court is rich now

nice answer peasant, now keep working my land for my protection.

>Your private army
hahahaha so your solution is become in a boss

What's stopping them right fucking now?

The State

>Ignoring the rest of the post

Why wouldn't the court just go take their shit without giving you a share, or even having a reason? Some sort of gentleman's agreement between the rich and powerful bosses?

Say a private court decides to just start taking shit from Rich people. What do you think the rest of the rich and powerful bosses are going to do? They're going to hire a private army to wipe out that court.

And after that, what are they going to do with their mercenary army? Pillage each other?

Are you saying it's rich people that get to decide when laws are enforced and what's worth starting a war over? Why would they start a war over the murder of your kids?

>hire mercenary army
What could go wrong Veeky Forums?

No, what I'm saying is that if in the unlikely scenario that someone decides to hire a private army and start pillaging shit either citizens will form a militia or someone is going to hire another private army. Rich people are rich for a reason and aren't going to risk their entire enterprise over a "war". What will most likely happen is that 2 conflicting sides will make a contract with a private court that the private court will decide how the issue will be resolved and the solution will be enforced by said court.

SHADILAY KEKISTAN BASED HELICOPTER RIDES

Why wouldn't they just use their professional armies to become sovereign states and ignore the courts? What is the court going to do? Start an empire and garrison soldiers in all their territories?

But why?

2/10 picture was too obvious

To be able to defend themselves on their own terms, conquer weaker bosses, and because to enforce rent on their captured territories?

Obviously?

thats slavery you cuck

What's stopping the state from doing the same thing?

>sorry?

If God is real, man isn't truly free.

God is real, therefore man isn't truly free.

youtube.com/watch?v=2QOhKVvfXD8

>being this butthurt

to maximize profit retard

A strong democratic tradition and the people keeping watch of the government.

>inb4 but the army though

The army consists of the people and nobody is willing to unlawfully fuck people over en masse.

m8, military coups happen all the time, what the fuck are you on about?

I think the better question is, "why does the right have such shitty sense of humor?"

[citation needed]

What's to stop someone doing that now?
Neighbours look out for one another, especially when outsiders come stirring shit.

Why does the right whine so much about memes?

michaelsavage.com/
this is what passes for right-wing""humor""

A state

because their ideology forces them to always take the moral position and real humor requires you to be mean.

so ok someone answer me this, in an statist society if you cannot protect your own property, because gun laws prevent you from do it yourself, then what is preventing the state with a ton of money from coming to your house with a public army, killing your whole family, and taking your house, i mean it's not like you can do anything about it, who protects in Eurostan?

I never understood why Libertarians tend to dislike trade unions. They're a mechanism for the people to pool their money and labor into a market force that can help to regulate abusive corporations.

Libertarians don't actually believe in what they say they just hate leftists. The miniarchist state was only a counterpoint to the gigantic soviet state, even though communism should be stateless and capitalism needs a state to enforce law. The soviet model was a giant contradiction, so they're a reflection of that giant contradiction.

>stateless socialism

literally impossible. How the fuck are you going to control shit without a state?

>trade unions

because its a mob run and democratic scheme in order to control workers to gain votes/money and it stiffles the freedom of the individual worker which is why they get triggered by right to work states. Also, unions nowadays are useless. You just give some of your money to some fat fucks every pay check and if you get fired, they might spend 2 years finding you another job for less pay. Remember to pay your union dues though!

t. someone whos actually worked for a living

Well, me personally, I feel like I lean libertarian but I can concede certain things to a smaller central government because that's the social contract. Honestly I think that the original American republic basically got it right. Small government, and the constitution said what the government was allowed to do, not what it couldn't do. But honestly with these Hoppean snek and Ancap memes, Libertarian is becoming as meaningless as "Liberal" nowadays.

>t. someone whos actually worked for a living
Yeah I mean honestly most of my family have worked in small businesses, and I personally am I medical school so I can't say I've ever been involved personally with unions. I do know that my good friend who comes from a mining family doesn't have a very positive view of unions, since they start to use their power to protect themselves as a political entity and not the workers. He says that the unions that he's familiar with have done things like use their weight to force companies to hire *only* union workers, which leaves the working individual the choice between not having a job or paying up to the union.