OK. Myrkul pointed me to this thread which I had missed. Since no NAPsters seems willing to debate anti-NAP, I'll try to raise a couple of objections to this anarchic NAPesque society.
@hawker.
Suppose we are neighbors. You are a small scale farmer and I wish to build a truckload of houses on my property. To do so I need to dig a well into the water table. You're a clever man so you realize this will cause problems for you 5 or 10 years into the future. My property is mine, so you cannot prevent me from doing the building. However there will eventually be a cost to you, so you must take action. The arbitrators cannot make a rational decision, in the sense that two a-priori equally neutral arbitrators might choose differently depending on their opinions of buildings, water tables, environmental destruction etc.
Therefore, your anarchic society, in this case, will fail to defend the rights of its peaceable members and will fail to resolve the conflict between them. Violence will ensue.
Topic: Defending the NAP: Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issues (Read 2249 times)
Its a bit pointless. It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones. I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.
I still don't understand. Are you saying my points are pointless, or this exercise in reversing positions is pointless? Regarding comfort zones, are you saying the true NAPsters (not myself) are the ones not getting outside their comfort zones, or I'm not getting outside my comfort zone? And I'm still waiting for what part of my post doesn't make sense.
I'm saying we have to ask and answer the questions ourselves. So lets wait for an objection that makes sense
Good luck waiting for an objection.
Its a bit pointless. It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones. I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.
I still don't understand. Are you saying my points are pointless, or this exercise in reversing positions is pointless? Regarding comfort zones, are you saying the true NAPsters (not myself) are the ones not getting outside their comfort zones, or I'm not getting outside my comfort zone? And I'm still waiting for what part of my post doesn't make sense.
I'm saying we have to ask and answer the questions ourselves. So lets wait for an objection that makes sense
Its a bit pointless. It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones. I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.
I still don't understand. Are you saying my points are pointless, or this exercise in reversing positions is pointless? Regarding comfort zones, are you saying the true NAPsters (not myself) are the ones not getting outside their comfort zones, or I'm not getting outside my comfort zone? And I'm still waiting for what part of my post doesn't make sense.
Its a bit pointless. It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones. I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.
As playing a NAPster
I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.
By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.
Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.
It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.
I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.
By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.
Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.
It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.
OK I don't understand a word of that.
Go back to yourself and and a 1 point post with an example where a NAP based society can't secure its environment.
Ask me more precisely what you don't understand.
As playing myself
Try to be smart and apply your knowledge in such a way that you can really defend your ideals within the structure of a system that you are against. It does no good to parrot your adversary. I will likely address the oceans next, but it will be tough, as I believe Hawker stated that the oceans are privately held.
Try to be smart and apply your knowledge in such a way that you can really defend your ideals within the structure of a system that you are against. It does no good to parrot your adversary. I will likely address the oceans next, but it will be tough, as I believe Hawker stated that the oceans are privately held.
As playing a NAPster
I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.
By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.
Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.
It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.
I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.
By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.
Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.
It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.
OK I don't understand a word of that.
Go back to yourself and and a 1 point post with an example where a NAP based society can't secure its environment.
As playing a NAPster
I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.
By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.
Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.
It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.
I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.
By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.
Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.
It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.
Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.
Except for you! Bravo.
See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.
FirstAscent will be on my side. The idea is that you go outside your comfort zone. So he will be defending the NAP as a way to save the planet.
I can't wait.
I'd be willing to present his arguments, If I had a clue as to what they were. Problem is, they're so disjointed, I can't make more than a half-assed attempt at spouting shit like "Edge effects!" and "They'll rape mother earth!"
As playing myself:
Which is evidence of your lack of understanding of them and their ramifications.
Now as playing a NAPster:
Edge effects will be addressed in this manner. Coops, coalitions, alliances, whatever you want to call them, will organize, band together, and recognize areas of critical importance, and buy, lease, connive, convince, etc. to gain control of large contiguous plots of land so they may be preserved, thus reducing the damage of edge effects.
These organizations will also relentlessly organize class action lawsuits against every landowner by default, unless you proactively demonstrate that you are operating under respected guidelines with regard to pollution output.
Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.
Except for you! Bravo.
See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.
FirstAscent will be on my side. The idea is that you go outside your comfort zone. So he will be defending the NAP as a way to save the planet.
I can't wait.
I'd be willing to present his arguments, If I had a clue as to what they were. Problem is, they're so disjointed, I can't make more than a half-assed attempt at spouting shit like "Edge effects!" and "They'll rape mother earth!"
Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.
Except for you! Bravo.
See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.
FirstAscent will be on my side. The idea is that you go outside your comfort zone. So he will be defending the NAP as a way to save the planet.
I can't wait.
Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.
Except for you! Bravo.
See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.
Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.
The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.
Short answer: Yes. Property rights are respected.
But this is how you want things to work. I can't win ;(
Ahhh... not quite. you still go for the gun a little too fast.
By the way, you still haven't answered this...
I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property of one another?
The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.
But this is how you want things to work. I can't win ;(
Ahhh... not quite. you still go for the gun a little too fast.
By the way, you still haven't answered this...
I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property of one another?
If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop. If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration. If you refuse, I have to kill you.
That's no way to win friends!
But this is how you want things to work. I can't win ;(
so you are going to force me to do something? again: fuck you!
(btw. welcome back Atlas.)
(btw. welcome back Atlas.)
If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop. If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration. If you refuse, I have to kill you.
im so scared of you! i really pissed in my pants. LOL If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop. If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration. If you refuse, I have to kill you.
That's no way to win friends!
Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
Of course. Any arbitrator will want to maximise his revenue so will encourage class action disputes. If your landing helicopters on your property makes mine less desirable to live in, I can get together my my neighbours and petition you to stop. If you ignore it, we have to go to arbitration.
(btw. welcome back Atlas.)
If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop. If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration. If you refuse, I have to kill you.
so you are going to force me to do something? again: fuck you!
(btw. welcome back Atlas.)
(btw. welcome back Atlas.)
Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
Of course. Any arbitrator will want to maximise his revenue so will encourage class action disputes. If your landing helicopters on your property makes mine less desirable to live in, I can get together my my neighbours and petition you to stop. If you ignore it, we have to go to arbitration.
(btw. welcome back Atlas.)
Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
Of course. Any arbitrator will want to maximise his revenue so will encourage class action disputes. If your landing helicopters on your property makes mine less desirable to live in, I can get together my my neighbours and petition you to stop. If you ignore it, we have to go to arbitration.
I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.
Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?
Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website. OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.
Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic?
(warning: trolling might be included in the post)
Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
Can anykind of group be represented in a process?
If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...
For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)
Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...
I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.
Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?
Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website. OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.
Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic?
That was a yes or no question, and that was not a yes or no answer.
I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.
Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?
Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website. OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.
Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic?
I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.
Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?
I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"
Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.
Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.
No. Its an anarchy. There is no power imposing rights. So by definition there can be no fixed rights.
Make up your bloody mind.
I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.
I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"
Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.
Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.
No. Its an anarchy. There is no power imposing rights. So by definition there can be no fixed rights.
Make up your bloody mind.
I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"
Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.
Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.
No. Its an anarchy. There is no power imposing rights. So by definition there can be no fixed rights.
...snip... fuck you!
That's verbal pollution. Is that really the only Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issue you can think of?
Your freedom ends when it costs me money.
how about indirectly costing you money? am I not allowed to make a competative business, and force the prices down, becuase it costs you money? fuck you! I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"
Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.
Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.
I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"
Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.
I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"
Fergalish came up with an idea that we try to debate the NAP from the opposite point of view. It going to be a quiet day in the office so I'll kick off.
Scenario: We live in a global anarchy. Its a mature society. There are no laws, no fixed rights and all disputes have to be resolved with arbitration on pain of being made an outlaw if you initiate violence. Everywhere is owned by someone. Even the depths of the ocean and the depths of space beyond the moon.
Is there anyone can see a problem with this from the point of view of Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issues.
Note: Arbitration is assumed to be rational. Your freedom ends when it costs me money. Likewise, no arbitrator will allow me to impose costs on you.
Scenario: We live in a global anarchy. Its a mature society. There are no laws, no fixed rights and all disputes have to be resolved with arbitration on pain of being made an outlaw if you initiate violence. Everywhere is owned by someone. Even the depths of the ocean and the depths of space beyond the moon.
Is there anyone can see a problem with this from the point of view of Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issues.
Note: Arbitration is assumed to be rational. Your freedom ends when it costs me money. Likewise, no arbitrator will allow me to impose costs on you.
Jump to: