Topic: ... (Read 1976 times)
I see the right to equal treatment as being important. Some people say the NAP entitles you to discriminate on grounds of race or religion in who you do business with and who you hire.
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
I don't see the Non-aggression principle as a guideline for a lifestyle. I think Hitler himself could have been a racist crazy that he was and still been a NAP follower, he would have just had to piss jews off to get them to attack him first.
So in simple terms you don't see non-discrimination laws as being against the NAP? We are fine then
Discrimination is a form of ignorance and coercion is it not?
Ignorance yes. Coercion? Well it violates the right to equal treatment so I think you are right. There are others here who feel very strongly that racial discrimination cannot be restricted under the NAP.
What does Nghtrppr think? He's the one who sets out the challenge :O
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
I see the right to equal treatment as being important. Some people say the NAP entitles you to discriminate on grounds of race or religion in who you do business with and who you hire.
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
I don't see the Non-aggression principle as a guideline for a lifestyle. I think Hitler himself could have been a racist crazy that he was and still been a NAP follower, he would have just had to piss jews off to get them to attack him first.
So in simple terms you don't see non-discrimination laws as being against the NAP? We are fine then
Discrimination is a form of ignorance and coercion is it not?
I see the right to equal treatment as being important. Some people say the NAP entitles you to discriminate on grounds of race or religion in who you do business with and who you hire.
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
I don't see the Non-aggression principle as a guideline for a lifestyle. I think Hitler himself could have been a racist crazy that he was and still been a NAP follower, he would have just had to piss jews off to get them to attack him first.
So in simple terms you don't see non-discrimination laws as being against the NAP? We are fine then
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
I see the right to equal treatment as being important. Some people say the NAP entitles you to discriminate on grounds of race or religion in who you do business with and who you hire.
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
I don't see the Non-aggression principle as a guideline for a lifestyle. I think Hitler himself could have been a racist crazy that he was and still been a NAP follower, he would have just had to piss jews off to get them to attack him first.
Exactly? No. If you get Stefan Molyneux here to make his argument or if you'd like to do it in his stead, I'm more than willing to debate.
I wonder if it would be productive. If I was Molyneux I wouldn't debate someone who started of with "I don't think UPB is worth reading." because "I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up." followed by a statement that nobody is willing to do the intellectual work for you. That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?
I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.
I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?
I see the right to equal treatment as being important. Some people say the NAP entitles you to discriminate on grounds of race or religion in who you do business with and whom you hire.
Is that your interpretation of the NAP?
Or one could just read my last post.
He knows I'm not Atlas. He was implying that I'm behaving like him.
You are all getting off-topic and you won't like me when you get off-topic.
Atlas, is that you?
Read War and Peace, On the Nature of Physical Laws and Fifty Shades of Gray to obtain your answer.
Or one could just read my last post.
Atlas, is that you?
Read War and Peace, On the Nature of Physical Laws and Fifty Shades of Gray to obtain your answer.
That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?
I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.
I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?
Atlas, is that you?
It's bitcoin2cash.
Isn't that exactly what you're doing?
Exactly? No. If you get Stefan Molyneux here to make his argument or if you'd like to do it in his stead, I'm more than willing to debate.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?
I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.
I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?
Atlas, is that you?
I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.
I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?
Isn't that exactly what you're doing? I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?
That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?
I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.
I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
Aggression is a matter of situation - morality doesn't come into it.
Behavior is innate, and the most pacifistic person will find themselves abusing Abu Ghraib prisoners quite willingly if they happen to be in that situation. They will contribute to genocide if they happen to be in a situation of genocide. And they will justify their actions philosophically and morally.
A principal is just a principal, and human behaviour has never been controlled by principal. It's always been informed by our innate biology, which is situational.
Behavior is innate, and the most pacifistic person will find themselves abusing Abu Ghraib prisoners quite willingly if they happen to be in that situation. They will contribute to genocide if they happen to be in a situation of genocide. And they will justify their actions philosophically and morally.
A principal is just a principal, and human behaviour has never been controlled by principal. It's always been informed by our innate biology, which is situational.
I don't think UPB is worth reading.
That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning? I've read Machinery of Freedom a couple of times. It's worth it for the quotes alone. I don't think UPB is worth reading.
It is well written and has a great tone doesn't it
You get the feeling that an evening in a bar with Freidman would be fun even if politics never got discussed. I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim.
A society should be based on morals, but operated on practicalities, with a goal of achieving as close an approximation of the morals as possible. The morals that the NAP upholds are that it is never right to violate someone's rights. So in order to approach that goal, we should reduce rights violations as much as possible. That means that any interaction which can be entirely voluntary, should be. In the case of a loaf of bread, It would be preferable to ask (as you note), rather than to steal. Further, any interactions which are in violation of the NAP should be compensated, to acknowledge that you have done wrong. If you do steal the loaf of bread, you will have to compensate the person you stole the bread from. In the ordinary course of life, there are very few interactions that cannot be entirely voluntary, and most of them are considered crimes. In fact, I can not, at this time, think of any.
The problem arise when what you regard as moral is regarded by others as an infringement of their rights. For example, racial discrimination violates the right to equal treatment. You say that not allowing racial discrimination violates your property rights. At some point a choice has to be made about what rights are more important and the NAP is no real help with that.
I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim.
A society should be based on morals, but operated on practicalities, with a goal of achieving as close an approximation of the morals as possible. The morals that the NAP upholds are that it is never right to violate someone's rights. So in order to approach that goal, we should reduce rights violations as much as possible. That means that any interaction which can be entirely voluntary, should be. In the case of a loaf of bread, It would be preferable to ask (as you note), rather than to steal. Further, any interactions which are in violation of the NAP should be compensated, to acknowledge that you have done wrong. If you do steal the loaf of bread, you will have to compensate the person you stole the bread from. In the ordinary course of life, there are very few interactions that cannot be entirely voluntary, and most of them are considered crimes. In fact, I can not, at this time, think of any.
There are two arguments for the non-aggression principle:
1. Violating the NAP has bad consequences.
2. Violating the NAP is immoral.
Since I'm not a consequentialist, I don't find the consequentialist argument convincing one way or the other.
As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong. That being said, I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim. If you are literally about to starve to death, steal some bread but be prepared to work it off. I doubt you'll have to steal though because I'll be glad to give you some of my bread. However, if you are dying because of liver failure, don't take my liver.
If you reject my opinion like I reject the opinions of those that wish to violate the NAP, we have irreconcilable differences. We can either try to coexist peacefully or we can go to war. There's nothing more to it than that.
1. Violating the NAP has bad consequences.
2. Violating the NAP is immoral.
Since I'm not a consequentialist, I don't find the consequentialist argument convincing one way or the other.
As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong. That being said, I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim. If you are literally about to starve to death, steal some bread but be prepared to work it off. I doubt you'll have to steal though because I'll be glad to give you some of my bread. However, if you are dying because of liver failure, don't take my liver.
If you reject my opinion like I reject the opinions of those that wish to violate the NAP, we have irreconcilable differences. We can either try to coexist peacefully or we can go to war. There's nothing more to it than that.
Why are bad consequences are not a convincing argument?
Can I suggest you read "The Machinery of Freedom" by Friedman.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/book-club-90846
It demolishes the idea that you can use the NAP as a basis for a society. Since Friedman is a respected libertarian and the book was written in 1971, perhaps its time to move on from defending the NAP? Its not like its needed for libertarianism.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/book-club-90846
It demolishes the idea that you can use the NAP as a basis for a society. Since Friedman is a respected libertarian and the book was written in 1971, perhaps its time to move on from defending the NAP? Its not like its needed for libertarianism.
Other books have been written since, and proven him wrong. Patience, I'm getting to that.
Can I suggest you read "The Machinery of Freedom" by Friedman.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/book-club-90846
It demolishes the idea that you can use the NAP as a basis for a society. Since Friedman is a respected libertarian and the book was written in 1971, perhaps its time to move on from defending the NAP? Its not like its needed for libertarianism.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/book-club-90846
It demolishes the idea that you can use the NAP as a basis for a society. Since Friedman is a respected libertarian and the book was written in 1971, perhaps its time to move on from defending the NAP? Its not like its needed for libertarianism.
As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdfAs for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong.
http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf
There are two arguments for the non-aggression principle:
1. Violating the NAP has bad consequences.
2. Violating the NAP is immoral.
Since I'm not a consequentialist, I don't find the consequentialist argument convincing one way or the other.
As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong. That being said, I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim. If you are literally about to starve to death, steal some bread but be prepared to work it off. I doubt you'll have to steal though because I'll be glad to give you some of my bread. However, if you are dying because of liver failure, don't take my liver.
If you reject my opinion like I reject the opinions of those that wish to violate the NAP, we have irreconcilable differences. We can either try to coexist peacefully or we can go to war. There's nothing more to it than that.
1. Violating the NAP has bad consequences.
2. Violating the NAP is immoral.
Since I'm not a consequentialist, I don't find the consequentialist argument convincing one way or the other.
As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong. That being said, I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim. If you are literally about to starve to death, steal some bread but be prepared to work it off. I doubt you'll have to steal though because I'll be glad to give you some of my bread. However, if you are dying because of liver failure, don't take my liver.
If you reject my opinion like I reject the opinions of those that wish to violate the NAP, we have irreconcilable differences. We can either try to coexist peacefully or we can go to war. There's nothing more to it than that.
Jump to: