Maximum role of Government? - page 22.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 05:07:16 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 05:04:12 PM

If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.

If you're unwilling to jump off a cliff, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate and are just trolling.

I'll let you answer this one:

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 03:49:58 PM

Just defend your statement and stop deflecting.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 05:06:04 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 05:03:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 05:00:48 PM

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

Never said it wasn't, just that reacting to crime is better than punishing those who haven't yet done a thing.

And still you have not justified that statement. You still still still have not explained WHY IT IS BETTER to allow a person's risky actions to cost many others their money, possessions, or even lives.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 05:00:48 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:46:16 PM

Yes, and the NAP is defined by "you". If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so? The NNNAP says that you can use coercion when your life is in danger.

If your life is actually in danger, it's not coercion. That's called 'self defense'. If you only think your life is in danger, then you're wrong.

Let's use a more realistic example. The speeding car.

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

How do I know if my life is in danger? In the example with the juggler I'm not allowed to do anything until he punctures the raft and we're all shark bait.

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 05:04:12 PM

If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.

If you're unwilling to jump off a cliff, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate and are just trolling.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 05:03:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 05:00:48 PM

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

Never said it wasn't, just that reacting to crime is better than punishing those who haven't yet done a thing.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 04:57:25 PM

This shit gets funnier and more contradictory by the second. I'm not even going to bother slogging through the mess to point it all out though. These two guys have proven that they are not interested in (or are completely incapable of) real debate. I don't mind debating fools, but I will not waste time debating intellectually dishonest fools who, when finally cornered, resort to, "NO, YOU!" like a small child would. That's not productive for anyone and the debate goes absolutely no where. Why bother giving myself carpal tunnel to tread water in a neverending loop of dishonest debate?

Troll Elsewhere.

Or, you're welcome to answer this question to get an answer to why Coercion is wrong, couched in your very on moral framework you might even say, custom written just for you:

Why is Murder Wrong?

If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 05:00:48 PM

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your example is as retarded as you are. Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:46:16 PM

Yes, and the NAP is defined by "you". If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so? The NNNAP says that you can use coercion when your life is in danger.

If your life is actually in danger, it's not coercion. That's called 'self defense'. If you only think your life is in danger, then you're wrong.

Let's use a more realistic example. The speeding car.

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

This shit gets funnier and more contradictory by the second. I'm not even going to bother slogging through the mess to point it all out though. These two guys have proven that they are not interested in (or are completely incapable of) real debate. I don't mind debating fools, but I will not waste time debating intellectually dishonest fools who, when finally cornered, resort to, "NO, YOU!" like a small child would. That's not productive for anyone and the debate goes absolutely no where. Why bother giving myself carpal tunnel to tread water in a neverending loop of dishonest debate?

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 04:40:25 PM

You always have a choice. Sometimes it's a shit choice (Take your chances on the raft, or drown when the boat sinks) but it's still a choice, and you made it.

Wasn't your argument the other way when it came to you go live somewhere else? You couldn't leave and go live in Somalia, Afghanistan or try seasteading to find your libertarian paradise. Isn't you staying put one of those "shit choice"s for you?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:35:15 PM

If you happen to own the raft you're free to endanger everybody's life for your own amusement? Even if we ended up there unwilling?

Teenage males are allowed to endanger everyone's life for their own amusement? Lock them up!

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:46:16 PM

If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so?

No, we just have a difference in opinion. We can either debate it until one of us changes our minds or you can commit violence on me or my property and then we go from there.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 04:33:54 PM

No, it's wrong because the NAP says so. If you want more information on why the NAP says so, there is plenty of data, even in other threads on this board, that I do not feel the need to rehash. If you or AyeYo will give me a definition as to why you feel murder is wrong, even though you disagree with the NAP, I will couch my explanation in terms that you will accept based on that framework.

And Yes, to some extent, you are asked to predict the future in every aspect of life. Every action you take is a risk. Even inaction is a risk, because of unpredictable factors of nature. That said, If you got on a raft with a knife juggler, you knew what you were getting into.

Yes, and the NAP is defined by "you". If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so? The NNNAP says that you can use coercion when your life is in danger.

Yes, living is risky. Why is it OK for others to decide what risk I should take? In most cases I can leave, and that would be the right choice, but if I can't I'll have to rely on the NNNAP to save me.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:35:15 PM

If you happen to own the raft you're free to endanger everybody's life for your own amusement? Even if we ended up there unwilling?

You always have a choice. Sometimes it's a shit choice (Take your chances on the raft, or drown when the boat sinks) but it's still a choice, and you made it.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 11, 2011, 04:26:15 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 03:06:33 PM

Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Right.

Once you allow that someones fear of risky behavior permits coercion then any form of tyranny can be justified. There's no stopping point. If teenage males are more likely to commit crimes than any other demographic, you can argue that we should lock them up until they are adults.

Unless of course, when you said "your life raft" you meant that I actually own it. In which case, I can set any rules I want because it's my life raft.

Why wouldn't there be a stopping point? Why does everything have to be all or nothing?

If you happen to own the raft you're free to endanger everybody's life for your own amusement? Even if we ended up there unwilling?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:22:08 PM

So it's wrong because I say so? Is that your definition? Then you shouldn't have a problem with our current society, because what's being done to you is "right because we said so".

So I'm supposed to be able to predict the future to avoid having people put me in unnecessary risk? That guy is forcing me to take a risk I'm not willing to take, but that isn't a violation of the NAP, or is it?

No, it's wrong because the NAP says so. If you want more information on why the NAP says so, there is plenty of data, even in other threads on this board, that I do not feel the need to rehash. If you or AyeYo will give me a definition as to why you feel murder is wrong, even though you disagree with the NAP, I will couch my explanation in terms that you will accept based on that framework.

And Yes, to some extent, you are asked to predict the future in every aspect of life. Every action you take is a risk. Even inaction is a risk, because of unpredictable factors of nature. That said, If you got on a raft with a knife juggler, you knew what you were getting into.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 03:06:33 PM

Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Right.

Once you allow that someones fear of risky behavior permits coercion then any form of tyranny can be justified. There's no stopping point. If teenage males are more likely to commit crimes than any other demographic, you can argue that we should lock them up until they are adults.

Unless of course, when you said "your life raft" you meant that I actually own it. In which case, I can set any rules I want because it's my life raft.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 04:17:52 PM

Well, you asked for a definition, and there it is. I could go into further detail but that would be simply defining the NAP, which has been done to death elsewhere.

As to your question about the juggler, You didn't have to get on that lifeboat. Back at the ship, there were plenty others. For that matter, you didn't have to get on the ship in the first place. You could have stayed home.

So it's wrong because I say so? Is that your definition? Then you shouldn't have a problem with our current society, because what's being done to you is "right because we said so".

So I'm supposed to be able to predict the future to avoid having people put me in unnecessary risk? That guy is forcing me to take a risk I'm not willing to take, but that isn't a violation of the NAP, or is it?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:13:45 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 04:11:22 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:07:58 PM

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

This is why I asked you to define why murder is wrong, first. So that I could put it into terms you would accept.

I've never claimed to be able to define why murder is wrong. Haven't thought enough about it. It's an intuitive thing for me. I might get back to you though. But claiming that something is right because it follows rules that you yourself defined clearly isn't a good answer.

Well, you asked for a definition, and there it is. I could go into further detail but that would be simply defining the NAP, which has been done to death elsewhere.

As to your question about the juggler, You didn't have to get on that lifeboat. Back at the ship, there were plenty others. For that matter, you didn't have to get on the ship in the first place. You could have stayed home.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 04:11:22 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:07:58 PM

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

This is why I asked you to define why murder is wrong, first. So that I could put it into terms you would accept.

I've never claimed to be able to define why murder is wrong. Haven't thought enough about it. It's an intuitive thing for me. I might get back to you though. But claiming that something is right because it follows rules that you yourself defined clearly isn't a good answer.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 04:07:58 PM

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

This is why I asked you to define why murder is wrong, first. So that I could put it into terms you would accept.

Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 22. (Read 28705 times)