Topic: What&#039;s so special about the NAP? - page 25. (Read 20467 times)

Quote from: ShireSilver on June 18, 2012, 06:36:20 AM

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality.

That's just one of the problems. It's biggest problem is it's logically nonsensical. In a society of NAPsters, who says that everyone must adhere to NAP? Who says NAP is the rule of the land? NAP would never get started unless a state said it was the the rule of the land, and even if everyone voluntarily decided it was in the absence of a state, the vacuum of power would soon be filled, and people would organize, and then you'd be back to a state.

NAP is a total fantasy. I've been saying that since the beginning.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: Equilux on June 18, 2012, 04:09:53 AM

Quote from: Equilux on June 18, 2012, 04:09:53 AM

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Income inequality is one of the many problems with a NAP i would say.

LOL! Income equality would improve under NAP as poor people would have not only more incentive, but more opportunity to increase their wealth and income. In addition, big companies wouldn't be able to use the force of government to reduce competition and get special favors, so they wouldn't be as big.

And BTW, I haven't paid U.S. federal income taxes since 2006. It is possible to not pay them. (I'm still working on not paying property tax, but that'll take more work. I haven't paid them directly since 2009 though.)

How would income equality improve? I don't see a theoretical reason nor do any examples in the real world point to that conclusion. Infact quite the opposite. Current examples and historical examples most aproaching a NAP only seem to show a decrease in income equality. Even more clearly visible is correlation between inequality and the following other socio-economic problems, crime and violence, leading to even more inequality, making it harder to create or take advantage of opportunity.

ShireSilver

sr. member

Activity: 382

Merit: 253

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Income inequality is one of the many problems with a NAP i would say.

LOL! Income equality would improve under NAP as poor people would have not only more incentive, but more opportunity to increase their wealth and income. In addition, big companies wouldn't be able to use the force of government to reduce competition and get special favors, so they wouldn't be as big.

And BTW, I haven't paid U.S. federal income taxes since 2006. It is possible to not pay them. (I'm still working on not paying property tax, but that'll take more work. I haven't paid them directly since 2009 though.)

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:58:09 PM

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Income inequality is one of the many problems with a NAP i would say. Theft and violence are almost always highly localized and seldom spill over to other areas. Violence and theft are highly connected with poverty on all continents. This even means that the poorest people who need protection the most have the least access to protection and the fact that they need to pay keeps them in poverty like FirstAscent described.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Personally, I think NAP fails because "aggression" is subjective and can be used to justify pretty much any behavior. Also, there will always be some organization that fills the "right to initiate violence" space. The question is whether it is better for people to live under the illusion that they chose who has this right or just let things work out how it will and deal with it. The end result would likely be the same for most people once the situation stabilized.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:51:37 PM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:46:35 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:36:51 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 10:43:39 PM

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

I don't get your point. The resources you have to devote to protecting your stuff grows with the value of your stuff. Noone really cares about robbing a homeless dude. So I would say yes.

What about the guy who was serial killing homeless people? What about whole areas in poverty?

How do you defend against a serial killer? Areas could be impoverished for many reasons. I think it is in everyone's (rich or poor) best interest to limit poverty as much as possible.

NAP increases the divide between the poor and the rich. Consider the following two interpretations of NAP:

1. Pay for how much service you want. In such a case, the rich get premium service and they can walk all over the poor. Result: the rich abuse the poor.

2. The pricing model is such that everyone gets equal protection for x dollars. In such a case, the poor pay a larger percentage of their income towards protection. Result: the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:51:37 PM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:46:35 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:36:51 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 10:43:39 PM

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

I don't get your point. The resources you have to devote to protecting your stuff grows with the value of your stuff. Noone really cares about robbing a homeless dude. So I would say yes.

What about the guy who was serial killing homeless people? What about whole areas in poverty?

How do you defend against a serial killer? Areas could be impoverished for many reasons. I think it is in everyone's (rich or poor) best interest to limit poverty as much as possible.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:43:54 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:40:09 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:32:48 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:08:27 PM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:46:35 PM

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

So, will you be addressing my points, or just acting offensive and insulting me?

I've addressed enough of your points. At this point, I will largely ignore you...

Very well, at this point, I will completely ignore you. Have a nice life.

I'm up for quality discourse on real world problems with you. I just don't want to talk about simplistic and largely silly ideologies that aren't going to come to fruition anytime soon.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:36:51 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 10:43:39 PM

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

I don't get your point. The resources you have to devote to protecting your stuff grows with the value of your stuff. Noone really cares about robbing a homeless dude. So I would say yes.

What about the guy who was serial killing homeless people? What about whole areas in poverty?

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:36:51 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 10:43:39 PM

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

I don't get your point. The resources you have to devote to protecting your stuff grows with the value of your stuff. Noone really cares about robbing a homeless dude. So I would say yes.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:40:09 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:32:48 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:08:27 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:32:48 PM

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

So, will you be addressing my points, or just acting offensive and insulting me?

I've addressed enough of your points. At this point, I will largely ignore you...

Very well, at this point, I will completely ignore you. Have a nice life.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:08:27 PM

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

So, will you be addressing my points, or just acting offensive and insulting me?

I've addressed enough of your points. At this point, I will largely ignore you, unless you post something that meets one of the following two criteria and I happen to feel inclined to respond:

1. A point that is worth refuting.
2. More flimsy half assed ideology.

I sincerely apologize for not attending to your needs in a more coddling manner.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 10:43:39 PM

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:08:27 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:26:28 PM

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

So, will you be addressing my points, or just acting offensive and insulting me?

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:23:39 PM

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:19:14 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:06:15 PM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 10:49:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 10:43:39 PM

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

I made a third point as well. It was in the second sentence of my last post.

Also, I suggest you study Herman Daly in depth.

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant. I will check Herman Daly, but if understanding it requires more than a few sentences his plan is too complicated therefore it will fail.

I really should acknowledge that I realize I act like an ass towards you, first ascent, because I don't get your viewpoints. But you do lead me to very interesting literature, and even if I never agree with you I want you to know I think I'm a better person for having come in contact with you.

That's rather contradictory. You don't get my viewpoints, but the literature I point you to is very interesting and makes you a better person.

Yes.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000