Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 14. (Read 20458 times)

There is more to the world than the state of Alabama.  I grew up in a segregated society in Ireland where there was no legal basis for it.  The same (I think) applies to Barry Goldwater in Arizona.

Read the entire article.  It reinforces the point that laws do change people's behaviour.  Law sets a standard of behaviour that the majority of people aspire to.

I'm sure that the very wise men of the past who spent most of their adult lives asking these questions and wrestling with morality and law and governance spent a little more time at than the throw-your-hands-up-in-the-air-and-claim-that-morality-is simply-differences-in-opinion method.  Thank all that is good that they spent more time on these questions, or else the systems of governance and popular notions of morality wouldn't exist and neither would we.

Did you even read that article?


It wasn't just "legal", it was officially sanctioned. It was enshrined in law. And I'm not talking about 1964. I'm talking about today. In today's society, do you believe that racial segregation would again achieve dominance without official sanction?

Laws do change people's behaviour.  Law sets a standard of behaviour that the majority of people aspire to.  That's why 35% of people wore seat belts before it was a legal requirement and 94% wear them afterwards.

And that's my problem with the NAP.  It sets the standard as low as it can be.  For example, it says you don't have to wear seat belts.  Thats over half the population that will revert to being seatbeltless with all the extra unnecessary deaths and injuries that will entail.

You can argue that you don't care and people only hurt themselves and their children but that does not make for a desirable state of affairs.

The exact same logic applies to racial discrimination.  Here is a libertarian take on it: http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/16/racism-civil-rights-and-libert

In my experience, changing the law to forbid religious discrimination did change things in Ireland and it was for the better.  

In all these cases, there are a hard core of people who disagree and who break the law.  But there is a solid majority who aspire to obey that law and it changes their behaviour.  Take away the law and behaviour will revert to the bad way things were.

Anything abhorrent under NAP is by definition not allowed.

You seem to be confusing laws with a principle

You can get anywhere from NAP, because it's meaningless. NAP can and will evolve in some direction, but it won't stay NAP for long.

Totally meaningless.

+1. I have no idea how they get from "every interaction should be voluntary on both sides" to "Bang her on the head, chuck her in the back of your car and you have a slave, a pretty girl who will be on her back 7 days a week earning money for you."


No, elaboration does not come before the statement. Give me more details on how you feel the NAP sets a low standard. I feel it sets the bar pretty high.

The NAP is absolutely meaningless. Consider an extreme example of a population of two: Ben and Hector.

Hector enslaves Ben. Ben claims he's been violated and claims he is justified in fighting back. So what?

You snipped the elaboration :O

If you can take a person as a slave and she has no legal way to sue for her freedom, you have legalised slavery.  Its not enough to say that under the NAP is abhorrent if its allowed.

Enslaving someone qualifies as "aggression".  I'm not sure how you have convinced yourselves that "non-aggression" == "slavery".

Ah. this is progress. Could you elaborate?

Laws do change people's behaviour.  Law sets a standard of behaviour that the majority of people aspire to.  That's why 35% of people wore seat belts before it was a legal requirement and 94% wear them afterwards.

And that's my problem with the NAP.  It sets the standard as low as it can be.

Fixed that for you.

Laws don't stop lawbreakers from doing bad things.  You seem to ignore the fact that one of your "evils" ("lynching") would prevent the other, slavery. Your poor young lady would have, if nothing else, the protection of her community.

Slavery may be abhorrent under the NAP but its not illegal is it? In your ideal world, the only protection from slavery is a defence agency.  If a someone is too poor or too stupid to have a defence agency, that's it.  Bang her on the head, chuck her in the back of your car and you have a slave, a pretty girl who will be on her back 7 days a week earning money for you.  Its a big business now; legalise it and it gets even bigger.  

So under your version of the NAP, you have racial discrimination, lynching, segregation and slavery.  

Oh, and an annual salary doesn't feed, house and clothe people 12 months of the year?

No it wouldn't. Slavery is economically unfeasible. You're feeding, housing, and clothing people 12 months of the year, and as much as half of that time they are doing nothing. You have to have an entire industry devoted to keeping them from getting away. Compare that to a tractor, and suddenly a slave doesn't look so attractive anymore. The north's industrial capacity was turning slavery into an unprofitable business already.

To say nothing of the fact that slavery is abhorrent under the NAP, anyway.

Society would also have slavery without laws preventing it.  Do you regard that law as oppressive too?

Consider the following story with two characters: Mike and Hawk.

Hawk owns an island in the south Pacific. It is his own private domain. He's the ultimate NAPster, free from any government. He recently met Mike, an aspiring NAPster. He invites Mike to come visit his island.

The two fellows sit on Hawk's veranda, sipping drinks and admiring the expanse of Hawk's beautiful island. A conversation ensues.

Hawk: "Why don't you stay here? I'll sell you a ten acre parcel on the south side of the island."

Mike: "Oh, I'd love that. I can live the NAP dream here."

Hawk: "Yes. There are some terms you must agree with though, as this is my island. Remember, I'm a NAPster true and true, and since this is my island, I make the rules."

Mike: "Uh, what are those?"

Hawk: "Well, when you buy that parcel of land from me, I'll grant you ownership rights, but they won't be like the ownership rights I have."

Mike: "Uhhh..."

Hawk: "When you buy the parcel, you'll have the right to sell it to someone else down the road. However, you'll have to pay me an annual fee while you own it based on my assessment of the land's value. Furthermore, any business you conduct on your property will be subject to various taxes and such."

Mike: "Hey, that doesn't sound right."

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."