Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 28. (Read 33901 times)

Statistics like that are meaningless. The devil is in the details.
What do we want to count?
Unemployed persons?
Families where all members are unemployed?
Average family income?

TA is voodoo. Denmark's still going down.

did you notice the trend about, that denmark rises after USA with a 'short' delay?
or that Denmark's movement down is flatting out?

So, the black line (falling) is Denmark, and the gray line (rising) is USA?

now to you people who is saying that Denmark is failing after reading it in New York Times.
read the danish news paper article http://www.information.dk/458873
or just look at this picture(procent of the population who is working):



(i know that is it in danish, but google translate is your friend...)

Only think I can possibly say about this is *facepalm*

By the way, an accident is not agression, just in case you didn't know that.


"Any kind?" Are you sure? Who determines NAP, or when someone aggressed against someone? Hint, it's not some government. So who will decide how much retaliatory force is appropriate? Hint, it's also not some government. Being a distributed, community-based "agreement," I'm fairly certain people will frown on excessive retaliation just as they will on aggression.


I'm with Hawkeye on this. When would someone have the right to initiate force or aggression? In what societies? Some examples please.

It's hardly my favorite part. But it does sort of wreck the symmetry of the concept. Still, let's see where that goes, shall we?

First off, burglary becomes an accepted act, as does breaking and entering. After all, those are crimes only against a person's property. You would have to sleep in your car, because taking it out of the driveway would be perfectly fine. Basically, anything not physically in your possession is "up for grabs." It's not all bad, though, you can't force someone to "share" their food, because that would require the initiation of at least a threat of force upon the person. Of course anything just sitting there in the pantry, unused, you'd be free to take, and nobody could stop you, since that would be initiating force against you.

So, if this were implemented tomorrow, I imagine there would be an orgy of theft and redistribution, after which I doubt anyone would do much work, given that the proceeds of that work could be taken from him as soon as he set it down. Anything that a person wanted to keep, they'd need to keep on their person at all times.

Maybe blablahblah is OK with a society full of people like this:


but it doesn't sound ideal to me.

OK, I'll take this one since I'm a determinist anarchist.


Who does own property if not us?  Do you own your house?  Your car?  Your computer?   Your clothes, TV, etc, etc...


First of all, where in determinism does it say you can initiate force against another person?

We may be in a deterministic universe but there is no way, at least with current technology of using the present to accurately forecast the future.  You would basically have to take a complete snapshot in one moment of time of all the atoms, electrons, quarks, etc and know all the physical rules binding them.  Doesn't seem likely we will ever have such a machine.  We are all agents making our own decisions.  They may be determined completely from all the environmental factors surrounding us from before the day we were born but regardless we make decisions.   

It all comes back to my first point, determinism tells you nothing about how humans should behave.  In particular, it doesn't say that some humans should be allowed to initiate force against others.  In the absence of such evidence we have to assume that we are all equal and no-one has any rights above any one else.  I'm really not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.


What gives statists a right to say some people have rights above others?  Tradition?  It goes back to what I said before, in the absence of evidence of people having special rights, everyone is equal.  It's the default position.   

You say maybe some people do have a right to initiate force against others.  Great.  All you have to do is show one example and you nullify the NAP hypothesis.   Logic 101.  So let's see just one example.  That's all that's required.  Shouldn't be too hard.

Or to put it in other words

You are not allowed to initiate force against another person.
If another person/s initiates force against you, defending yourself is a perfectly valid response, but ultimately it's your choice whether you want to or not.

Personally I would defend myself, but each to his own.

Personal choice.  It's a wonderful thing.

the second one is NAP-compatible...

Well, maybe I'm dumb, because I honestly cannot not figure out more versions of "I will not attack you, but will defend myself if you attack me" other than that one, which says "I will not attack you, but will defend myself if you attack me."

I mean, I guess someone could say, "I will attack you, and you should have no right to defend yourself," or "I will not defend myself even if you attack me," but those are not NAP.

So, again, can you please pretend that I am the dumb one, and give me some examples of "I will not attack you, but will defend myself," otherwise known as the NAP, that compete with each other?

In other words, pacifism. Yeah, I can live in peace with a pacifist.

Oh, I wouldn't doubt kokjo would, just to be contrarian.

It's easy to prove that the NAP is correct, by looking at the opposite and proving that it is incorrect.    The opposite says that some people do have the right to aggress against others.  Where is the proof that this is correct?  If there is no proof, then the NAP must be correct.  It's simply the null hypothesis.

Government is just an ancient tradition.   Being a tradition does not make it a valid concept.    I'm sure people argued for keeping slavery back in the day as well.  After all, it was pretty much all that the human race had known and was seen as necessary for agriculture.  Except when you actually examine it, you can see there is no basis for one man being able to own another, regardless of what the laws of the day said.

Not being able to be aggressive against others is such a fundamental truth I'm honestly surprised people argue against it.

If I was arguing on the side of the aggressors I'd honestly be embarrassed, if not ashamed (if it had been pointed out to me), about it.

An example of a competing Non Aggression Principle would be one where I do not initiate force against others, but do not defend my own property rights or seek justice when they are violated.  However, it doesn't infringe on someone else's NAP, since I am not aggressing against them.  The only way a competing NAP could violate the others is if it were an aggression principle.

A NAP that chooses to defend property rights would be in violation of an Aggression Principle which held that you initiate force against others, and they cannot defend themselves.  Surely, no one is advocating this?

OK, I'll call that bluff:

Rebel against what? The idea that if someone attacks them, they can defend themselves? Or the idea that others should be able to defend themselves from their attacks? Frankly, rebel how? By going on a killing spree, because they don't agree that others should have a right to defend themselves? That would result in them being promptly shot though, so, uh, let them rebel?
Only thing that NAP "forces" is that you treat others like you would like others to treat you. And it doesn't even force that. You are still free to be a murderous asshole, it's just that everyone else will agree that it's ok to shoot you for it.

So, basically, you claim the right to commit violence on whoever you want without repercussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_University_shooting
Good thing guns are illegal.

But you misunderstand. Private entities are free to restrict guns on their property. If the customers of DenmarkGov wanted to keep guns off their property, they could have DenmarkGov make sure that nobody brought guns in. Of course, if someone wanted to own a gun, they'd be free to join a Government which allowed them to have guns, they just couldn't bring them onto DenmarkGov protected territory.

I live on land I bought and paid for. Why the hell should I?

Who exactly enforces those gun regulations, if not other people with guns? And why can't a private non-government entity have rules that there are no guns allowed on a specific property, such as on their university, and even use people with guns to enforce those regulations? What's the "magic" that gives government gun-toting regulators the power to regulate guns and keep safe, that a private entity can't have?