What does that have to do with anything?
Everything. Are they hurting people now, in London?
Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 19. (Read 20458 times)
What does that have to do with anything?
Everything. Are they hurting people now, in London?
No they are not ethical in London. They are rich and the security firms need their money.
Oh? I was not aware there was a Market Anarchy in London. How's that working out for you?
Fine. The foreign rich provide employment and taxes and the UK has always had an upper class so they fit in nicely.
Are they hurting anyone?
Of course they are. You don't get to be a Russian oligarch or a dictator without hurting people. Look at the news from Moscow, Bahrain or the Congo to see how many of the super rich get rich. That's why they need security firms.
What does that have to do with anything?
I think NAP is a beautiful personal principle, but I also agree with the others here saying that it breaks down the second someone elects to use force or even in borderline cases.
Is a company polluting and causing cancer in your village aggression? Or their freedom? Do you even have hardcore scientific evidence you can show in a court or in public?
The money to take a day off to protest, hire lawyers or what ever?
Is a company polluting and causing cancer in your village aggression? Or their freedom? Do you even have hardcore scientific evidence you can show in a court or in public?
The money to take a day off to protest, hire lawyers or what ever?
No they are not ethical in London. They are rich and the security firms need their money.
Oh? I was not aware there was a Market Anarchy in London. How's that working out for you?
Fine. The foreign rich provide employment and taxes and the UK has always had an upper class so they fit in nicely.
Are they hurting anyone?
Bernie Madoff, AIG, MF Global, all ripped off billions working from the City of London. So, yes.
No they are not ethical in London. They are rich and the security firms need their money.
Oh? I was not aware there was a Market Anarchy in London. How's that working out for you?
Fine. The foreign rich provide employment and taxes and the UK has always had an upper class so they fit in nicely.
Are they hurting anyone?
No they are not ethical in London. They are rich and the security firms need their money.
Oh? I was not aware there was a Market Anarchy in London. How's that working out for you?
Fine. The foreign rich provide employment and taxes and the UK has always had an upper class so they fit in nicely.
No they are not ethical in London. They are rich and the security firms need their money.
Oh? I was not aware there was a Market Anarchy in London. How's that working out for you?
They are ethical in London, because their money will not protect them if they break British law. If they are protected, it is by the government, by diplomatic immunity.
And attacking/defending is not a moot point. it is the salient point, when discussing the NAP.
And attacking/defending is not a moot point. it is the salient point, when discussing the NAP.
No they are not ethical in London. They are rich and the security firms need their money. Kroll, Blackwater and Aegies and the like don't check your ethics - they check if you can pay them in advance.
If you and I both believe we own the same thing, for example in a boundary dispute, and you refuse arbitration, I am left with the fact that you have possession of land I think is mine. I feel attacked. If I try to take it back, you will feel attacked. Then its only a question of which of us has the more money for fire-power.
And attacking/defending is not a moot point. it is the salient point, when discussing the NAP.
Exactly! Bigger guns win.
They are ethical in London, because their money will not protect them if they break British law. If they are protected, it is by the government, by diplomatic immunity.
And attacking/defending is not a moot point. it is the salient point, when discussing the NAP.
And attacking/defending is not a moot point. it is the salient point, when discussing the NAP.
Money talks is not an argument.
I am a high net worth individual. I will either own my own defence agency or have a contract for so many properties that they will be begging for my business. Take a walk around London and you see the oligarchs, the dictators and the sheikhs all with private security escorts. You really think they are somehow ethical in London despite being tyrants in their own countries?
If you and I both believe that we own the same thing, then who is attacking and who is defending is a moot point. I'd own my own defence agency and my own arbitration firm. I would always say that (1) you refused arbitration and (2) you are the attacker. I'm therefore justified in using my defence agency to take what I want off you.
Money talks is not an argument.
Either make a rational argument or admit you are wrong.
Back at ya. "money talks" is not an argument.
I am a high net worth individual. I will either own my own defence agency or have a contract for so many properties that they will be begging for my business. Take a walk around London and you see the oligarchs, the dictators and the sheikhs all with private security escorts. You really think they are somehow ethical in London despite being tyrants in their own countries? Money talks.
If you and I both believe that we own the same thing, then who is attacking and who is defending is a moot point. I'd own my own defence agency and my own arbitration firm. I would always say that (1) you refused arbitration and (2) you are the attacker. I'm therefore justified in using my defence agency to take what I want off you.
Either make a rational argument or admit you are wrong.
Back at ya. "money talks" is not an argument.
Money talks.
This is your entire argument. Troll. Harder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Either make a rational argument or admit you are wrong.
Money talks.
This is your entire argument. Troll. Harder.
If I have a contract with a defence company, it will protect me. Arbitration is not required.
If you refuse arbitration, you break a contract. If you break one contract, you'll break all the others. Your defense agency's included. No arbitration, no protection.
Companies prefer arbitration to court action as it gives them more power.
But you said "always". That's a big claim to uphold. So is it always, or is it preferable in some instances?
And I'm still waiting for an answer to this: If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or defending?
I am a high net worth individual. I will either own my own defence agency or have a contract for so many properties that they will be begging for my business. Take a walk around London and you see the oligarchs, the dictators and the sheikhs all with private security escorts. You really think they are somehow ethical in London despite being tyrants in their own countries? Money talks.
If you and I both believe that we own the same thing, then who is attacking and who is defending is a moot point. I'd own my own defence agency and my own arbitration firm. I would always say that (1) you refused arbitration and (2) you are the attacker. I'm therefore justified in using my defence agency to take what I want off you.
If I have a contract with a defence company, it will protect me. Arbitration is not required.
If you refuse arbitration, you break a contract. If you break one contract, you'll break all the others. Your defense agency's included. No arbitration, no protection.
Companies prefer arbitration to court action as it gives them more power.
But you said "always". That's a big claim to uphold. So is it always, or is it preferable in some instances?
And I'm still waiting for an answer to this: If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or defending?
1. Arbitration requires enforcement. What do you do when someone refuses to accept the outcome? Or even refuses to accept arbitration at all? To be useful, it has be have enforcement. Ultimately, that means a threat of violence. If your defence companies are not going to do the enforcement, who will?
I have already explained this, and your willful refusal to understand that is why I called you a moron. You said it yourself, without protection, you will die. Refuse arbitration, and you refuse protection.
2. Arguing over whether or not defence companies that gang up and destroy a smaller defence company are defending or attacking is semantics. They are applying violence. Their competitor will be destroyed and they will take over its territory/client base. Every dispute that results in violence will eliminate a defence company. You end up with 1. That one firm will be able to set whatever rate it wants and anyone who fails to pay will suffer.
If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or are you defending? Answer that. It is important, I assure you. Initiating force is against the NAP, responding in kind is not.
The winning agencies do not "take over" their foes territory or client base. The clients will be free to choose another agency, or to defend themselves, just as they were before. In fact, it's likely that those clients will abandon the attacking agency as soon as their actions become well known, making the reprisal unnecessary.
Why not offer something that is better than what we have now?
The weird thing is, I am, and you refuse to see it. If court is always better, why are so many companies putting agreements to arbitration in their employment contracts?
If I have a contract with a defence company, it will protect me. Arbitration is not required.
Companies prefer arbitration to court action as it gives them more power.
Your whole concept of the NAP is that people won't do business with companies that initiate force. Come to London - see the oligarchs, the sheiks and the dictators get first class service. In the real world, if the bad guy has money, no-one cares about his character.
1. Arbitration requires enforcement. What do you do when someone refuses to accept the outcome? Or even refuses to accept arbitration at all? To be useful, it has be have enforcement. Ultimately, that means a threat of violence. If your defence companies are not going to do the enforcement, who will?
I have already explained this, and your willful refusal to understand that is why I called you a moron. You said it yourself, without protection, you will die. Refuse arbitration, and you refuse protection.
2. Arguing over whether or not defence companies that gang up and destroy a smaller defence company are defending or attacking is semantics. They are applying violence. Their competitor will be destroyed and they will take over its territory/client base. Every dispute that results in violence will eliminate a defence company. You end up with 1. That one firm will be able to set whatever rate it wants and anyone who fails to pay will suffer.
If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or are you defending? Answer that. It is important, I assure you. Initiating force is against the NAP, responding in kind is not.
The winning agencies do not "take over" their foes territory or client base. The clients will be free to choose another agency, or to defend themselves, just as they were before. In fact, it's likely that those clients will abandon the attacking agency as soon as their actions become well known, making the reprisal unnecessary.
Why not offer something that is better than what we have now?
The weird thing is, I am, and you refuse to see it. If court is always better, why are so many companies putting agreements to arbitration in their employment contracts?
Jump to: