Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 24. (Read 20458 times)

You seem to be arguing that the absolutely dirt poor will be by that fact completely defenseless. I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that government services aren't truly free, and taxes hurt the poor far worse than the rich. Remove the tax burden, and suddenly even the poorest people have a good chunk more money to spend.

Also, I'd like to point out that many people who can't afford a landline phone handily afford a cell. A good number of people have dumped the landline in favor of a cellphone, myself included.

You really don't see a problem with your cellphone analogy? Really? Come on man. You find it acceptable that an enormous amount of people are unable to simply go about with their day because they are not able to defend themselves (or are uable to pay for it) just like it is acceptable that an enormous amount of people who clearly need a cellphone can't get one.

I think there is a lot more going on with regards to those events in our recent history to single our the lack of seperation of powers as the main problem. an d I can only see a NAP making that much much worse, even more local selfish interst being pusued, and now with even more power being directly for sale, a NAP would definatly not make things better as far as i can see.

For whatever price they are willing to pay ... for whatever price they are able to pay ... which in many many case is nothing to very little, or in even more case, simply not enough. Not by a longshot since in a vast majorety of the cases the people most needing protection from that harshest violence have the least to spend on protection. that's why people end of enslaved working for some warlord/gangster/druglord. Hence my earlier remarks about that's whole sceme massively favoring the rich and powerfull

Learn free market economics as taught by the Austrian school of economic thought and you'll understand why it's a fallacy. But really quickly, what you said is the same as if I said creating private companies to develop cell phones will massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leave a lot of people who clearly need cell phones without one.


I don't seem think there is a problem with separation of powers, I think there is no such thing as separation of powers just the idea of it, and I think that based on evidence of recent history like unilaterally declared wars and all the other bullshit governments do they according to their PR (constitution) aren't suppose to do.

Not so. Where there is a demand, a supply will be created. If someone does not wish to defend themselves, then someone will be willing to defend them, for whatever price they are willing or able to pay.

Explain please, merely saying fallacy doesn't make it so.

You seem to think there is a problem with the seperation of powers, how would a NAP improve that? If anything it would only make things worse.

Don't forget the rest of the post btw.

And for someone making a remark about me "just stating things", you seem to be doing exactly that ...

Fallacy.


What separation of powers? Merely saying it exists doesn't make it so. 

I couldn't quite put my finger on it earlier but now I think I see at least one of the major flaws in a NAP approach;

What a NAP implicitly asks, or even excpects from everyone involved, is that every single individual dedicates a significant amount of their time and effort in making sure you can defend yourself. Whether that involves selfdefence lessons, learing to proficiantly shoot a gun, reinforcing their house or whatever, all that time could have been spend on something much more worthwhile.

It's such a waste, especially if you think about what actually is important in a human life, to be able to spend your time doing the things you love to do, are good at, and feel passionate about, and in which you experience growth. Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended.

Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.

Why, when giving them their wish won't even empty one clip? All it takes is one guy who doesn't want to be ruled...


But that function can be provided without the monopoly. You hear anarchy, and you think chaos. That's not it at all, all an anarchist wants is for the government to give up its monopoly on justice and protection. Let other, competing agencies do the same job.

They can't.  Really, you can talk all you want but 10 trained military people who are willing to die for their cause can dominate 1000s.  Even in the US, tiny groups like mafia families have great power.  Once you lose the protection of the state, as Irish Catholics did in the 1970s, then you are at the mercy of savages.

You really give the impression you think that people are basically nice and that if the society were set up right, we would all get along.  That is wrong.  Racial and religious violence is real.  Part of the function of government is to prevent such stuff.

Which becomes a feud, ongoing battle, war, whatever. The winner takes over and then you have the beginnings of a government, state, kingdom, whatever.

No, that is a new pile of corpses on my front lawn. No monopoly on violence, remember? That means that peaceful people can defend themselves using whatever means necessary.

You need some real life experience of hatred.  Democratic government, even if its by a party you did not vote for, does not hate you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

This is hatred.  And when law and order breaks down, that is your new government.

Well said.

Exactly. Which means it has no meaning unless people choose to abide by it.

Imagine: I punch you in the face. You cut my arms off because you don't care about NAP. What do I do? Then you kill me. That's NAP for you.

It might be more precise, or at least clearer, to say that the NAP is a natural law because it state that "no person has the right to initiate force against another person" while also having the right to not have force initiated against them in turn. In other words, if you do initiate force then others (the victim in particular) have the right to respond with a proportional punishment. Of course, this is what is generally meant by "one does not have the right to...", that one can legitimately be punished for doing so, but in this case it helps to make the symmetry explicit.

This is a natural law in the domain of logic, as opposed to physics. It is a natural law for the simple reason that if you can justify initiating force against someone else without provocation, they can use the same argument to justify initiating force against you, regardless of whether you're claiming that it is right to initiate force, or that it was wrong but you should be able to get away with it anyway, or that the rules are not necessarily universal... whatever argument you use can be turned back against you. No matter how you argue, the fact remains that you initiated force against a non-aggressor, and if you can justify it, so can they. If you can't justify it, then you effectively admit that you deserve the punishment.

The case has been solved. The killer can no longer continue his crusade. Unlike your fantasy world, where homeless individuals would continue to be preyed upon.

What? How did that happen? Where was the government?

edit: did the victims at least get the protection money back?

And by people who feel morally superior to me... you mean other than those in government?