I think personal security (private gun ownership, security systems, new tech advances), together with private security services that people voluntarily pay for, is that happy medium.
Hardly. But you've never been prone to think things through.
Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 5. (Read 36619 times)
Hardly. But you've never been prone to think things through.
I think personal security (private gun ownership, security systems, new tech advances), together with private security services that people voluntarily pay for, is that happy medium.
Likely you will find much better explanations than I can offer, but from what positions you've carved out, it doesn't appear that this NAP philosophy is your foe, only that you don't adhere to it because it limits the means (using guns to remove guns) to your desired end (less guns). So even if your position is rational, it is also immoral.
I believe this is the #1 point; if one has any desire for violence as a moral and legitimate means to solve non-violent problems, NAP makes no sense whatsoever. The moment someone identifies the center of any society, politics, as a violent means to solve both violent and non-violent problems, the NAP becomes both plausible and preferable, and thus the libertarian standpoint is to replace the aggression at the center of society with non-aggression: I predict, once this occurs (and can only occur in the individual, never in politics), the violence we experience throughout the world, stemming from our current violent center of society, will change to peace experienced throughout the world, stemming from a peaceful center of society.
This is why authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state. So, to seek peace, we must be peaceful, and many of us already are; to say it's okay for government to cheat, steal, kill, and threaten is to admit cheating, stealing, killing and threats as moral practices.
Which we, I hope, generally agree to be false.
authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state.
The primary argument in this discussion is whether the greatest good would be for the state to be the sole force of control toward the elements of violence and lawlessness, or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms. I am certain there is a happy medium.
Likely you will find much better explanations than I can offer, but from what positions you've carved out, it doesn't appear that this NAP philosophy is your foe, only that you don't adhere to it because it limits the means (using guns to remove guns) to your desired end (less guns). So even if your position is rational, it is also immoral.
I believe this is the #1 point; if one has any desire for violence as a moral and legitimate means to solve non-violent problems, NAP makes no sense whatsoever. The moment someone identifies the center of any society, politics, as a violent means to solve both violent and non-violent problems, the NAP becomes both plausible and preferable, and thus the libertarian standpoint is to replace the aggression at the center of society with non-aggression: I predict, once this occurs (and can only occur in the individual, never in politics), the violence we experience throughout the world, stemming from our current violent center of society, will change to peace experienced throughout the world, stemming from a peaceful center of society.
This is why authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state. So, to seek peace, we must be peaceful, and many of us already are; to say it's okay for government to cheat, steal, kill, and threaten is to admit cheating, stealing, killing and threats as moral practices.
Which we, I hope, generally agree to be false.
I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?
The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.
But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.
Why, in NAP, is the first to draw a weapon, the loser? Can you demonstrate, through a description of a process, taking into account as many realistic factors as possible, why that is the common outcome. Please factor in witnesses, or lack of, money and affluence, possible histories of persons involved, and so on. Please explain how NAP better resolves this than traditional systems.
As I mentioned, I am no expert on NAP. Bitcoiner Ryan Charles writes about it though.
http://ryanxcharles.com/archive/properties-of-non-aggression/ states that "If you believe in the non-aggression principle, you believe it is immoral to start fights with people, but not (necessarily) to defend yourself from someone who is attacking you." (From this I paraphrased, "first to draw a weapon, loses.")
From reading it, it seems that our current legal framework aspires to be philosophically following the NAP, and has only failed from over-reaching: "although aggression can sometimes be rational, it can never be moral". Likely you will find much better explanations than I can offer, but from what positions you've carved out, it doesn't appear that this NAP philosophy is your foe, only that you don't adhere to it because it limits the means (using guns to remove guns) to your desired end (less guns). So even if your position is rational, it is also immoral.
I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?
The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.
But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.
Why, in NAP, is the first to draw a weapon, the loser? Can you demonstrate, through a description of a process, taking into account as many realistic factors as possible, why that is the common outcome. Please factor in witnesses, or lack of, money and affluence, possible histories of persons involved, and so on. Please explain how NAP better resolves this than traditional systems.
I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?
The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.
But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.
I don't know much about NAP, how would guns be pointed at you?
I thought that the principle was essentially that the first to draw a weapon, loses.
Help me understand how I am wrong about this? As a younger man I'd have argued your side of this, so I could easily be mistaken.
You mentioned the "innocent mistake" followed by other "innocent mistakes", but that seems like a thin justification for the expense of this broadly expanded government authority.
I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?
The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.
But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Since you clearly believe that no system can exist without the initiation of violence, we cannot reach a reasonable compromise.
initiation of violence is necessary sometimes, for example by a state to make its citizen behave nicely to each others.The NAP on the other hand, fails big time when the first trigger has accidentally been pulled. If(When!!) the first trigger has been pulled, the NAP immediately gives everyone the right to pull his to "protect" himself and "others", only to be a target for more bullets. The NAP is indeed a pile of guns and explosives and "legally" acquired nuclear weapons(because there is no law) just waiting for the little spark of someone greeting the wrong someone else with their middle finger raised.
I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?
Nicely said
I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?
The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.
Furthermore, the history of free speech in totalitarian states is somewhat less than perfect.
Some have even quipped that the well-armed society... is a polite society.
Would not your ideal state be that one in which they are allowed but the people choose not to have them, and people are civil to each other not because they have to be?
If so, why be so uncivil and draw your gun-laws on the innocent law-abiding folks who choose to protect themselves in a dangerous world? Not everyone's daughter/wife/mother is a martial artist who can fend off those who may jealously covet their beauty or treasure.
We all here cherish life, have the best result in mind and seek the same end, some just seek it without this desire to violate the ability of the weak to defend themselves. Intelligent people may disagree on this ends-justifying-the-means process, but wanting more law does not necessarily make you a free-speech advocate. There are already laws against threatening someone (assault). So your speech is not impaired by your fear of safety from your fellow citizens so much as it may be by the many laws against free speech.
If you have been on a US University lately, you may have some knowledge of the "free-speech" zones. These institution of broader enlightenment have reduced free-speech to only be allowed in constrained places and times. http://thefire.org/cases/freespeech/ These gun-free zones have some of the least free speech in the United States, and they reasonably ought to be the opposite, places where ideas can be debated in more freedom than elsewhere.
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Since you clearly believe that no system can exist without the initiation of violence, we cannot reach a reasonable compromise.
initiation of violence is necessary sometimes, for example by a state to make its citizen behave nicely to each others.The NAP on the other hand, fails big time when the first trigger has accidentally been pulled. If(When!!) the first trigger has been pulled, the NAP immediately gives everyone the right to pull his to "protect" himself and "others", only to be a target for more bullets. The NAP is indeed a pile of guns and explosives and "legally" acquired nuclear weapons(because there is no law) just waiting for the little spark of someone greeting the wrong someone else with their middle finger raised.
I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?
Should they be found to be guilty, then a compensatory ruling would be handed down.
By whom? How many times does this need to be asked?
Just to interject, you know how nowadays you have things like feedback ratings on eBay and credit scores with various companies? I envision that soon enough a lot of that will be consolidated into a single distributed reputation system that will allow anyone who deals with you to see if you are trustworthy or not, and whether to do any business with you or to avoid you. The "whom" will be "everybody" the criminal wants to interact with. The threat of not being able to buy food or lodging will be quite a lot more severe than a threat of getting free food and housing for a few years, so there will be a lot more incentive to maintain your reputation, and try to fix it when it gets ruined.
Should they be found to be guilty, then a compensatory ruling would be handed down.
By whom? How many times does this need to be asked?
Should they be found to be guilty, then a compensatory ruling would be handed down.
By whom? How many times does this need to be asked?
The NAP is not a suicide pact, it's basic tenet is that you do not INITIATE force, not that you never use force.
wrong. The NAP is a pile of explosives just waiting for a spark.I see.
So, you have no cogent argument, just a dislike of non violent solutions.
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Since you clearly believe that no system can exist without the initiation of violence, we cannot reach a reasonable compromise.
Have a nice life, far from me.
Quote from: Samuel Adams
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
The only way the accuser can force the accused to agree is if the accused has broken the NAP first.
... and what happens when the accused do not agree that its him who have broken the NAP?(hint hint: The accuser forces the accused)
Duh, then the accuser is violating the NAP, and the accused can defend himself with a counter-lawsuit, such as suing for legal harassment. Same way it works now with those abusing the legal system being sued for it. It's not that complicated.
Yes legal system, no government. You don't need a government to have a legal system. Just people agreeing to abide by an agreed upon set of rules to interact with each other, and ostracize anyone who breaks or doesn't follow them. Look at the modern international trade agreements and dispute resolutions between transnational corporations. No one made the laws they all follow within their group but themselves. There was no one-world-government for them to depend on.
P.S. If you believe you would be too stupid to figure out how to behave yourself and how to settle issues with others without resorting to shooting them and getting shot at in return, I can understand why you wouldn't like such a system. You have consistently pointed out that you need someone with more brains and guns telling you what you are and aren't allowed to do.
P.P.S. "lebertards" believe in limited government that provides for military, security (police), and court systems. That's not what anarchists believe in when they say that NAP would make those things redundant.
The NAP is not a suicide pact, it's basic tenet is that you do not INITIATE force, not that you never use force.
wrong. The NAP is a pile of explosives just waiting for a spark. The only way the accuser can force the accused to agree is if the accused has broken the NAP first.
... and what happens when the accused do not agree that its him who have broken the NAP?(hint hint: The accuser forces the accused)
Are you familiar with the concept of ostracism?
One scenario that has been widely accepted as valid by anarchists is that a court would be convened and the person ASKED to appear before them. Should they be found to be guilty, then a compensatory ruling would be handed down. If they failed to perform, they would be ostracized. Few, if any, people would do business with them or allow them in their lives until they at least made an effort to make the situation right.
This is not a theoretical model. It's how the Law Merchant worked during the renaissance. There was no central authority, they simply relied upon each other for compliance. It was not perfect, but it worked well for well over a century.
Do note that this is a model of COMPENSATORY justice rather than punitive. The penal forms don't work well. They generally end up punishing the victim at least as much as the aggressor.
Also, within such a system, if a person killed another they would need to appear before such a court and prove that it was indeed self defense, or face permanent ostracism. Humans in general do not do well when isolated completely from companionship. This is a working model.
The NAP is not a suicide pact, it's basic tenet is that you do not INITIATE force, not that you never use force.
Don't paint a caricature without at least learning what it is you're caricaturing.
The only way the accuser can force the accused to agree is if the accused has broken the NAP first.
... and what happens when the accused do not agree that its him who have broken the NAP?(hint hint: The accuser forces the accused)
Duh, then the accuser is violating the NAP, and the accused can defend himself with a counter-lawsuit, such as suing for legal harassment. Same way it works now with those abusing the legal system being sued for it. It's not that complicated.
Jump to: