Pages:
Author

Topic: Freedom is ... - page 11. (Read 14409 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
January 02, 2013, 12:57:06 PM
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?

So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive.

No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.

But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 02, 2013, 12:40:03 PM
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?

So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive.

No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.
full member
Activity: 132
Merit: 100
January 02, 2013, 12:33:00 PM
I'll be happy if you can demonstrate any preference that is in any sense objectively valid.

There is a book called Universally Preferable Behavior that attempts to prove this, as well as years of discussion and fine-tuning beyond this. Reiteration here would be ridiculous, so I invite you to research into it. The book and audiobook are available for free.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
January 02, 2013, 12:25:46 PM
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?

So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive. You are making a positive claim here this means you hold the burden of proof. Why ought all people not be aggressive? For me i personally would prefer that people not be aggressive but thats simply because *I* prefer peace and prosperity not because i believe peace and prosperity are objectively preferable. I mean lets call this what it is, you are saying that some things are objectively preferable. The phrase "objectively preferable" is like a paradox it makes no sense to me, the very idea of preference implies an element of subjectivity. forget the nap, I'll be happy if you can demonstrate any preference that is in any sense objectively valid.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 02, 2013, 12:13:48 PM
...the result of people applying Universally Preferable Behavior and logical reason to their moral understanding and interactions with other people.
+1
full member
Activity: 132
Merit: 100
January 02, 2013, 12:12:20 PM
...the result of people applying Universally Preferable Behavior and logical reason to their moral understanding and interactions with other people.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 02, 2013, 11:11:14 AM
Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.
Then test our "faith". Can you think of a single situation where it would not work?

Yes, and I already mentioned such an example before. If you want me to remind you, first you'll have to promise to accept it with an open mind and to forever STFU about the NAP being 'infallible'. In addition, you should then quit propagandising An-Cap with discredited arguments (about the NAP's infallibility) under the false pretence of "discussion".
If you can disprove an argument, intellectual honesty demands no less than I reject it in the future.

Then test our "faith".
And just to clarify your position: do you concede that your confidence in the non-aggression principle is a kind of faith? Those double-quotes you used may have indicated sarcasm.
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?
member
Activity: 78
Merit: 10
December 31, 2012, 09:55:05 PM
Higher power~something spiritual? How about: blind faith that the non-aggression principle (not principal) is infallible and therefore all that's required to prevent chaos and disintegration of society when the government goes AWOL?

You are the only one claiming it will prevent chaos. There will still be chaos, as there is now under government rule, because there will always be assholes trying to commit crimes.

Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.

"Empirical evidence?" The NAP isn't going to do diffuse conflict scenarios, it will either prevent or eliminate them. To say otherwise is to claim that things like the threat of punishment or being actually killed by police will not prevent someone from committing crimes or stop them from being able to commit them in the future. The enforcement method is the same.

Besides, the NAP is a hypocritical statement. It "throws the first punch" by laying down the law and telling people what they can't do. I'd rather have a government because at least they consist of human beings who are capable of intelligent thoughts, unlike a dumb principle that any mindless drone can recite.

The opposite of NAP throwing that first punch is the government throwing the first punch by laying down the law and telling people that they MUST use aggression and violence against others. That's the opposite of NAP.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 31, 2012, 09:36:27 PM
They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.


The only similarity is that the NAP is also a fucking religion -- you're just too blind to see it.

Religion requires a belief in some higher power or something spiritual that has to be taken for granted but can't otherwise be proved. At most the NAP is a philosophy. Mostly, though, it's just an understanding, since all it is, in it's totality, is "don't fuck with my stuff, and I won't fuck with yours." I'm not sure where you are getting "religion" out of that, unless your belief is that normal people should be able to fuck with others' stuff without permission, and doing otherwise is some crazy cooky nutcase idea.

Higher power~something spiritual? How about: blind faith that the non-aggression principle (not principal) is infallible and therefore all that's required to prevent chaos and disintegration of society when the government goes AWOL?
No... people following that principle is all that's required. Not even all people. Just most, and those who don't being considered criminals. The only difference between that and now, is that not all that don't are considered criminals.

Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.
Then test our "faith". Can you think of a single situation where it would not work?

Besides, the NAP is a hypocritical statement. It "throws the first punch" by laying down the law and telling people what they can't do. I'd rather have a government because at least they consist of human beings who are capable of intelligent thoughts, unlike a dumb principle that any mindless drone can recite.
...
NAP throws the first punch... by telling people they can't throw the first punch. Logic is not your friend, is it?
member
Activity: 78
Merit: 10
December 31, 2012, 07:33:35 PM
They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.


The only similarity is that the NAP is also a fucking religion -- you're just too blind to see it.

Religion requires a belief in some higher power or something spiritual that has to be taken for granted but can't otherwise be proved. At most the NAP is a philosophy. Mostly, though, it's just an understanding, since all it is, in it's totality, is "don't fuck with my stuff, and I won't fuck with yours." I'm not sure where you are getting "religion" out of that, unless your belief is that normal people should be able to fuck with others' stuff without permission, and doing otherwise is some crazy cooky nutcase idea.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
December 31, 2012, 05:31:36 PM
everything you've said recently has already been debunked multiple times but you never listen.

I'm sure I totally missed it, but could you please repeat your debunking of the " leave others' stuff alone and don't be an asshole" idea? I'd love to hear how that is debunked exactly.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 31, 2012, 04:00:39 PM
They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.


The only similarity is that the NAP is also a fucking religion -- you're just too blind to see it.

And what aspects of a religion make it so? Because it looks to me like a legal framework based on logical principles, not a faith based on superstition and myth.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 31, 2012, 03:23:48 PM
Ah yes, the NAP doctrine again... And of course ALL peaceful people have heard of it... Not!

How about freedom from your religion? Are you starting to see the irony in your earlier "freedom is slavery" jibe?

They don't have to have heard of it in order to live by it, and therefore, be peaceful. Some other formulations:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Christianity

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. " - Confucianism

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Buddhism

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. " - Hinduism

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Islam

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." - Judaism

"Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss." - Taoism

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself." Zoroastrianism

So you see, basically every religion has taught this ideal as "good." Following this ideal - not harming another unless they have harmed you - makes you peaceful, regardless of how you word it.

None of those even resemble the NAP, sheesh! Roll Eyes
They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 31, 2012, 12:50:19 PM
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Wink
Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians  Wink

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

I see that in this latest tangent in the discussion you've completely abandoned your voluntarism principles. It's all voluntary until someone disagrees, then it's "my way or the highway", huh?
When someone breaks the agreement to leave each other alone, it's not voluntary anymore, because they disagreed. They tried to force someone to do something. They made it not voluntary.

What agreement? The one you made up?
The one all peaceful people live by:

"No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

Ah yes, the NAP doctrine again... And of course ALL peaceful people have heard of it... Not!

How about freedom from your religion? Are you starting to see the irony in your earlier "freedom is slavery" jibe?

They don't have to have heard of it in order to live by it, and therefore, be peaceful. Some other formulations:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Christianity

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. " - Confucianism

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Buddhism

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. " - Hinduism

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Islam

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." - Judaism

"Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss." - Taoism

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself." Zoroastrianism

So you see, basically every religion has taught this ideal as "good." Following this ideal - not harming another unless they have harmed you - makes you peaceful, regardless of how you word it.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 31, 2012, 12:19:45 PM
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Wink
Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians  Wink

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

I see that in this latest tangent in the discussion you've completely abandoned your voluntarism principles. It's all voluntary until someone disagrees, then it's "my way or the highway", huh?
When someone breaks the agreement to leave each other alone, it's not voluntary anymore, because they disagreed. They tried to force someone to do something. They made it not voluntary.

What agreement? The one you made up?
The one all peaceful people live by:

"No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 31, 2012, 11:54:42 AM
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Wink
Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians  Wink

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

I see that in this latest tangent in the discussion you've completely abandoned your voluntarism principles. It's all voluntary until someone disagrees, then it's "my way or the highway", huh?
When someone breaks the agreement to leave each other alone, it's not voluntary anymore, because they disagreed. They tried to force someone to do something. They made it not voluntary.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 09:51:01 PM
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Wink
Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians  Wink

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.
hero member
Activity: 991
Merit: 1011
December 30, 2012, 09:40:17 PM
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Wink
Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians  Wink
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 30, 2012, 08:43:15 PM
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Wink
Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."
hero member
Activity: 991
Merit: 1011
December 30, 2012, 08:27:04 PM
Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore Wink
Pages:
Jump to: