Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 23. (Read 33901 times)

Read it again, genius. We're talking about a particular physical object. This is not IP. If anyone is trying to muddy the waters, it is you.

Except that would be forcing me to come home to destroyed property. Perhaps it would be better for the sanity of all concerned if property doesn't get involved just yet.

I think the answer to this is, "What if someone's will was the destruction of your property, while you were away so as not to force anything on you, and a bystander couldn't stop that someone since stopping them would be forcing them to do something against their will, which is to cause destruction"

Duel to the death!

So mister blablabla, you dislike the libertarian concept of property. Libertarians believe in first appropriation by homesteading and transfer by voluntary exchange. What alternative criteria would you use?

Perhaps you do not believe in property at all. To this i say how do you reconcile the situation where two different people desire to posses the same unique object. lets say its a painting and two different people each want that painting on their mantle. How do we decide who gets it?

Fine. Let's start with the absolute basics. If it were possible to arrange, would you say that a world where it is physically impossible to force someone to do something against their will would be ideal?

I'm not "interpreting" the NAP. It's a defined thing. What agenda is there in "don't mess with me and I won't mess with you?" You keep saying this "agenda," or "force" or whatever, but you have yet to actually describe it. What force am I exerting on you by telling you that I have no intention of preventing you from leaving your room? What is my agenda in not doing anything to prevent you from moving around your own property?


And yet, it's been done for thousands of years. The NAP is just the concept that if you don't mess with me, I won't mess with you. How often has that idea, which is also referred to as the golden rule and followed in all societies and religions, changed? How often has the definition of NAP changed since someone came up with it? (No, you trying to change the definition by saying there are variations of it doesn't change the original definition). The funny thing is that using your rather misguided logic, you could also say that mathematics and laws of physics are just a religion, since they don't change, either  


Are the terrorists breaking the NAP? Or are you just claiming they are to further your point? If the military is defending US territories from unprovoked attacks, yes, it's following the NAP. If the military is just fighting the rebels who want that military out of their country, then the military is the aggressor, and the "terrorists" are just defending their home. Frankly, it doesn't matter what the military does. The NAP is the NAP, and you can't just say someone is following the NAP as an example of it being a good or a bad thing, any more than I can come over, kill you, and say it's not murder, just because I say it isn't. Or, in a nicer term, I can't say that altruism is bad by claiming that Stalin was practicing altruism by killing off 6 million of his own people. You can't redefine words like that.


To quote, "my brain is full of fuck" after reading that. Biggest government = no government is like WTF! And "ordinary governments" have only come up with the idea of getting feedback from their population fairly recently, a few centuries ago. As for Russia, they have plenty of oversight: the people at the top oversee that everything goes their way, no questions asked. Like in a dictatorship, which is the most governmenty kind of government you can get. Which is, again, the exact opposite of what we want, because it's the exact opposite of what individual freedom consists of.



Yeah, fuck things like wanting to have food, water, energy, and home (aka greed). We want "humanity!"
And that point is kind of what you learn when you learn about international business. It's all AnCap at the top. It's also all AnCap on the web, since the web has no borders, either. And it's not a quirk, it's a trend. So keep fighting against it if you wish, but you'll have to get used to it eventually.

Yeah, and the Muslims are a little bit different than the Christians but they're essentially buying the same rap.  "Thou shalt not" etc.; the only case in which this cannot apply is atheism, or when applied to government, anarchism.  Show me where any religious/legal document could be backed with hard fact, not a silver tongue or a heavy hand.  Show me that all atheists go on killing sprees because there's no God to tell them they can't kill another person.  Now show me where it says, in the Bible, or the Torah, or the Quran, that you shouldn't kill (a law,) or else you'll go to Hell (repercussion: prison.)

The state is a religion.  Anarchism is the rejection of that religion.  Anarchism is atheism, and atheists have been getting on with life pretty fucking fine, last time I checked.  How on Earth you thought a one-sentence principle compared to the Bible is frightful.  I've never met a voluntary Christian, only those born or fooled into it by another Christian.  Guess why atheists exist everywhere, while Christians only exist among other Christians.

Go on, guess.

The Bible wasn't written by God, nor did every follower claim to be interpreting God's message.  And people have interpreted and reinterpreted the Bible a thousand times; there's even multiple versions of it, in the same languages.  What gives, man?  Are you serious?  Try the constitution, or the bill of rights, and then you'll have a correlation.

You're right, Rassah, this is pointless. It's like arguing with Mr. Tumnus about whether or not lions can talk.

First off, the settlers were not, by any stretch of the imagination, "libertarians." Some of them were scoundrels, and not all land claims were gotten legitimately.

Secondly, How, exactly? If they have possession of it, and I take possession of it, without their permission, am I not stealing? And if they give to me of their own free will, it can hardly be called aggression, can it?

Indeed I am. Can't social sciences have natural laws as well?

You do realize this is not a real-time communication, right? That I can't read your responses until you hit "post"?

Those "settlers" were aggressively taking away the property that belonged to the natives. They weren't following NAP. If they asked the natives if they could take that property, and prevent others from using it, the natives would have said "no," and if those settlers had actually been "libertarian" and followed NAP, that would've been the end of that.


Except NAP is not democracy, and NAP is defensive, while the US military is offensive and retaliatory. If the US military lived by the NAP, it would have been based entirely within the US border, with it's international actions only limited to espionage to be aware of any pending attacks. Moreso, it would have to answer to its customers who would be willingly paying to support it, instead of having to answer to no one, because it can be supported by unwilling tax payers, even if they don't support the war. The first strike rule that Bush instituted is the exact oposite of NAP, since it's the act of first aggression.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the NAP, and putting up strawmen to fight your own definition of NAP. The only person you are winning the argument against is yourself. This is why I said you are basically arguing from within your own fantasy world. No one else uses your definitions. (not "laws of nature," "definitions.")


By the way, note, something like 60% to 70% of the US population was against going to war in Iraq. Many extremely against it. Had we had private military, and no government, the forces that invaded Iraq would have had to work really hard to convince their customers that it's in their best interest. Most likely they would have never invaded, because they would have lost 60%+ of their customers. And even if they did invade, they would not have the funding to continue to fight there, since their customers would've abandoned them, and stopped paying their dues. Thanks to our "representative" democracy and tax system, the US military was able to ignore the 60% to 70% and invade, since the only way to abandon supporting the military is to stop being a customer of the US, i.e. renounce your citizenship. And even after they invaded, thanks to forced taxation, everyone continued to financially support the war despite their objections.

TL;DR: Completely opposite to your claim, NAP would have likely prevented the war that a non-NAP democratic government started.
How's that statist government thing for you now, huh?

I DID answer that. I said, explain to me how I am controlling you by telling you that you are allowed to leave your room, and I have no intention or interest in stopping you. You keep claiming that the idea/principle of "I won't bother you if you won't bother me (aka NAP)" is controlling. That would mean that me not telling you where to go is controlling, too. Tell me how I am controling you by telling you this?

You also seem to be conflating morals with beliefs. There aren't moral beliefs. Something is either moral, or it's not. If a law says that it's ok to sacrifice some unwilling virgin, and everyone believes it's ok, that still doesn't make it moral. If you believe it does, then we again have a problem of you having your own made-up reality.


Religion is based on faith. Please tell me what about the idea that "don't attack me, I won't attack you, but if you do attack me, I'll defend myself" is based on faith? They are factual statements, explaining factual outcomes of a given situation. Or is your strawman about "It'll be chaos!" the faith part?


"Alternative NAPs???" Are you making up your own definitions of NAP?

Ok, here's the deal. 5 is a number that denotes this many objects * * * * *. That's the definition of 5 that the real, rational world as a whole agrees on. If you can give me a "5 that can not coexist with alternative 5" I'll admit you are right. Though I suspect to do that, you would have to make up a whole new definition of 5 that no one else in the real world uses.
In short, you are arguing against a definition. If you want to argue against an outcome in a society based on accepting that definition as it's principle rule, then do so. Don't say stupid shit like "Alternative NAPs." No such thing, just like there aren't "alternative 5's". If you think that a society that is based on "don't mess with me, I won't mess with you" will not work, then say exactly why it would not work, with your own example (such as, "without laws, everyone will go on a killing spree," or some such), but understand that people who are not following the NAP principle are not following the NAP principle. They are following their own whatever, in violation of NAP, not an alternative NAP.

Not at all. Removing the "property" part of the NAP results in people's things being taken against their will. That's an unpleasant result, for yourself as well, I'd wager.

Does the fact that competing laws of gravitation can not coexist without resulting in chaos invalidate the law of gravitation?

No one can change gravity, either. G'head, try. I'll wait.

There is no perfect system; there will always be criticism for anything you can think of.  The question is, what system do you root for, and why have you come the conclusion that all others are inferior to yours?

You like having the TV removed from your home while you're at work?

You've yet to offer valid criticism. Your one criticism, when applied, results in chaos.

I'm just going to quote Rassah, here, he says it perfectly:

Just thought I'd toss this in here:



Is it so crazy to suggest an open source method might be a better solution?

I don't think he can loose. He doesn't accept reality, and thus is literally impossible to debate with. The only way he can lose or win is if we accept his fantasy as reality, and argue within that, but then all we would do is try to win an argument about fantasy. It'll be like arguing about semantics of Star Wars or something.