Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 10. (Read 20458 times)

So you agree then that you should be coerced (violently if necessary) to not drive unsafely?

Because they focus on stopping or preventing things that actually endanger other people? Imagine that! Think how much time and money the other states spend on enforcing seat belt laws when they could be stopping speeders and drunk driving.

I'll ask you, to what degree excluded from the Laws do you think you should be in the society?  If you could somehow opt-out of being subjected to seat-belt laws would you find it unreasonable that your insurance company could be informed of this and rates your rates accordingly with their statistics based on what an increased risk that poses?  If not, then why shouldn't they be able to raise your rates?  And if not, how does that not constitute you wanting a "Free Lunch" in Milton Friedman's terms?

With Social Security, how would you suggest to opt out of that?  As a child you were already covered if your parents died or other catastrophes that SS provides for.  So, to be fair, I think you'd have to pay back the equivalent of the coverage during this time-frame that could have been paid by a private insurer.  We'll net that with the balance you've paid into it and then send you on your way.  But later in life, when you could be destitute (either due to your actions or complete chance/misfortune) then you'll also have that badge that will dictate that you cannot receive any government assistance in this manner.  If it is a economic depression and private charity is exhausted (as it was and is bound to be before this crisis is over) then you can starve.

We'll ignore that the historical arguments for Social Security went (insofar as I am aware) at least to the 1820s and it is something that the labor-class (hint: your class) has fought long and hard for.  We'll ignore the statistical facts around this program and let you 'run free'.

What else would you like to "opt-out" of in our society?

New Hampshire has one of the lowest percentage of people who wear seat belts among the 50 states. Their fatality rate may be low, due to the fact that they're very tough on other laws with regard to driving. Think how many more lives would be saved if more people in New Hampshire wore seat belts.

Also, please note that anyone under 18 must wear a seat belt while riding in a car in New Hampshire.

Well, I was hoping for more historical references instead of unfocused "we don't like what we have, but wee have no clue what we want" movements. I'm not familiar with the Nullification Crisis, but the Articles of Confederation failed because of exactly the reason I posited... No tax revenues.

Of course the difference is that he doesn't get to decide unilaterally what the Law is.  That's why there is a process for this, should I post the video on this?  How did the want to pass Laws that increase the public good translate into that person wanting dictatorial powers?



But he can surely try to pass this as a Law, and if the checks-and-balances of that system deem it not worthy of being a Law, then it won't be.

This conversation seems about a hair's breadth from become a poo-throwing chimpanzee madhouse.

 

That sounds like manifest destiny of whatever you want to find in any system.  Outside of the 1830s Nullification Crisis and the Confederated States of America prior to the Constitutional Convention, how about the current events of:

*  Occupy Wall St.
*  The Indignados of Spain

Both of these 'movements' had a consensus model and both were complete failures in actually doing anything productive or effective in combating our present problems.  Can we agree that these movements were failures?  I think nothing could be more obvious, since the movements started to address specific problems in society that they did nearly nothing in solving - and, subsequently, is why they collapsed and imploded.

Once again, I am not suggesting that they be unable to outsource their thinking. Only that they be unable to outsource mine.

And as a final nail in the coffin of your argument, I present this:

You may or may not be aware that in the US, we allow states individually to choose whether or not to enact some laws, among them, seat belt laws. Well, New Hampshire remains the only state in the union without a seat belt law, and, well, I think the article speaks for itself: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/517088-196/nh-motor-vehicle-fatalities-at-47-year-low.html

We are already suffocated by rules - we don't need more.  There is a huge difference between saying that the law-making system is legitimate (it is) and saying the specific laws are good ideas (some are not) and saying that the good ideas are well implemented (many are not).

And they are about 50% of the population.  That's why things like social security, the nhs and seat belt laws exist.  Its also why the NAP is fundamentally flawed.  Only a minority of people will be able to live as well as they do now.

Since you know what's "the right thing" for everyone, perhaps you'd be willing to propose bans on other dangerous things people do that you probably see no significant benefit to -- rock climbing without ropes, skiing (some horrible parents even let their children do this!), and American football.

I have no problem with them outsourcing their thinking, as long as they let me do mine.

Problem is, they want to outsource mine as well, whether I want them to or not.

I would point out, however, that it does seem to explain the first half of your point. They need the law to tell them what to do because they let the law tell them what to do...

There is no problem unless you want to take that away from people.  And if you are going to take away people's rights as citizens, presumably all other rights can be taken away as well.

Ever think that might be part of the problem?

Wrong in theory and in fact.  You are assuming people act rationally in their best interest if there is no law.  Facts tell us otherwise.

Look at the stats: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8243841.stm

Before the law, 37% of people wore seat belts.  After the law, 94%.  That's over 50% of people who need the law to do the right thing.  

Also, law is not about coercion only.  It sets a standard that people live up to.  That's why people vote for lawmakers who provide seat belt laws, social security and the like.  It allows people to "outsource" the act of willpower needed to live a better life.  

OK, back to ignoring you then. Bye now!

Not worth replying to. Try again.

Violent coercion does not lead to injury if you comply (or don't get caught not complying). Since you compare complying to "bending over and taking it", I assume what you are doing, could be compared to bending over, taking it, and shouting to the rafters how much you love it?

So, finally you come out and give a (relatively) straight answer to my simple house scenario. You would consider me ejecting you for defecating on my carpet to be coercion. In that case, mind if I come over to your place? Oh, and do you have toilet paper?

Let me be crystal clear on what you should be crystal clear on: You complain on a daily basis that you are coerced violently, yet you are still here, and presumably without injury. Either you're being coerced violently, or you are not being coerced violently. If the former, present the evidence. If the latter, then man up, admit you're not being coerced violently, but instead bending over and taking it, instead of growing a pair and moving somewhere else.

If I was in your house, and breaking your rules, then I'd either leave, or choose to stay and fight, or adhere to your rules. All three of those options would seem to be indicative of some form of coercion. Regardless of that, it is clear that you have imposed a set of rules in your house that ultimately lead to coercion.