What's so special about the NAP? - page 26.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on June 18, 2012, 12:19:14 AM

Quote from: bb113 on June 18, 2012, 12:10:11 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 18, 2012, 12:06:15 AM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:49:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:43:39 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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on June 18, 2012, 12:10:11 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 18, 2012, 12:06:15 AM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:49:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:43:39 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.

Unfortunately, such an assessment and view is not supportive of progress when dealing with very complex systems.

You might want to read these:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

And more generally, Seed Magazine has some excellent pieces that are relevant to everything:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/in_defense_of_difference/

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: bb113 on June 18, 2012, 12:10:11 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 18, 2012, 12:06:15 AM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:49:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:43:39 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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 18, 2012, 12:06:15 AM

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:49:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:43:39 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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2012, 12:05:01 AM

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on June 17, 2012, 11:49:41 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:43:39 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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:43:39 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:35:23 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:10:09 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:06:19 PM

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

Why do you assume I could not afford it?

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

Furthermore, your flimsy and untested ideas suffer from two more big problems:

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

Honestly, your views sound like those of an idealistic and very naive thirteen year old.

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.

As to the "flaws", without "victim disarmament laws," the people can defend themselves, as well as get protection from the defense agencies. If you have a few minutes, you could read a fictional account of an invasion into an AnCap area in this excellent short story by Vernor Vinge, "The Ungoverned". The environment is a tough one, but a consistent response to environmental damage can, and in my opinion, would, develop. After all, there's no law requiring computer manufacturers to use USB to connect their peripherals.

Finally, It's interesting that you brought up my age. In my over 30 years of life, I have met several 13 year old people with more critical thinking and logic skills than you are displaying.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:43:39 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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:35:23 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:10:09 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:06:19 PM

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

Why do you assume I could not afford it?

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

Furthermore, your flimsy and untested ideas suffer from two more big problems:

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

Honestly, your views sound like those of an idealistic and very naive thirteen year old.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 11:10:09 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:06:19 PM

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

Why do you assume I could not afford it? After all, I doubt even you will call government "efficient", and I can, along with my fellow tax victims, pay for their protection, along with all the other services I neither want, nor need, nor, in some cases, even receive (I'm not on welfare, or have a child in school, f'rex, but I still pay for it). It follows that if I'm not paying for schooling for other people's kids, or buying other people's cheese, I can afford a simple protection contract. It also follows that private companies would be more efficient, to say nothing of less aggressive, and thus cheaper, so I'd likely have plenty of money left over.

I should also like to point out that I am already the victim of mob rule and extortion. (voting and taxes, respectively)

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 11:06:19 PM

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 10:55:15 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 10:28:27 PM

It actually is one of those bigger, badder, meaner, and better armed gangs of thugs. Why would you be happy about them smacking you around and taking your money? Wouldn't you be happier if you hired guards to protect you, instead of people kicking in your door and screaming "I'm here to protect you!"?

Thank you for showing the absurdity of your argument.

1. They don't smack me around and take my money.
2. I would not be happier hiring guards to protect me. Absurd.
3. They don't kick in my door and scream.

I see. So, because it works on this particular micro scale, because you don't see them steal your money, because you'd rather let someone else pick who defends you, and because you've never been the subject of a raid, you assume this is true for everyone?

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 10:28:27 PM

It actually is one of those bigger, badder, meaner, and better armed gangs of thugs. Why would you be happy about them smacking you around and taking your money? Wouldn't you be happier if you hired guards to protect you, instead of people kicking in your door and screaming "I'm here to protect you!"?

Thank you for showing the absurdity of your argument.

1. They don't smack me around and take my money.
2. I would not be happier hiring guards to protect me. Absurd.
3. They don't kick in my door and scream.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 09:58:06 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 08:41:15 PM

You can avoid suffering the consequences of these laws for a time, by using aerodynamics or attacking unarmed people instead of armed ones, respectively, but you cannot fly forever, and eventually, you will run up against someone armed, and willing to defend themselves.

I guess that just sucks for you when that bigger, badder, meaner, and better armed gang of thugs runs up against you before they run up against an even bigger, badder, meaner and better armed entity.

You see, gravity is intrinsic to the Universe at the microscopic level. Your NAP and the solution you explained might work at the macro level after numerous individual samples are aggregated into an average, but at the micro level, it's woefully deficient at imparting fair treatment to all.

But the government does so much better?

It actually is one of those bigger, badder, meaner, and better armed gangs of thugs. Why would you be happy about them smacking you around and taking your money? Wouldn't you be happier if you hired guards to protect you, instead of people kicking in your door and screaming "I'm here to protect you!"?

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: fergalish on June 17, 2012, 03:30:16 PM

I'm talking about "true libertarianism" in which even the NAP is rescinded. You are truly free to do whatever you want. Rescinding laws until you're left with only the NAP is arbitrary. Give me a good logical argument why libertarians insist on maintaining a NAP, and yet insist on rescinding lots of other laws. Or, alternatively, why libertarians insist on creating the NAP, yet refuse to create other laws.

Of course, people would still have the right to defend themselves; foolish is the bandit who attacks the rich martial arts expert travelling dark lonely streets without bodyguards and foolish is the thief who steals a ferrari with the remotely activated defense systems, and so on.

Maybe some suggest the NAP should be a law, but I just use it as a way to live and a way to determine who I want to avoid.

And my (current) chosen way to live allows me to chose whether to defend or not. I don't have an obligation.

Regarding property, I consider things mine to the extent that I can defend them. I don't buy property (houses, land) because I don't think I can defend it well enough (own it well enough) to be worth the cost.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 08:41:15 PM

You can avoid suffering the consequences of these laws for a time, by using aerodynamics or attacking unarmed people instead of armed ones, respectively, but you cannot fly forever, and eventually, you will run up against someone armed, and willing to defend themselves.

I guess that just sucks for you when that bigger, badder, meaner, and better armed gang of thugs runs up against you before they run up against an even bigger, badder, meaner and better armed entity.

You see, gravity is intrinsic to the Universe at the microscopic level. Your NAP and the solution you explained might work at the macro level after numerous individual samples are aggregated into an average, but at the micro level, it's woefully deficient at imparting fair treatment to all.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 08:16:17 PM

I will not accept your analogy.

I don't expect you will. When arguing with a wall, expecting the wall to understand you will only end in disappointment.

But on the off chance that you might open your mind a little and let the light shine in, or that someone else reading this will be enlightened by it, I will make my analogy.

Gravity is a natural law. It states that objects attract each other in proportion to their mass.
The NAP is also a natural law. It states that no person has the right to initiate force against another person.

Natural laws need no enforcement, they enforce themselves.
Jump off a building, and Gravity enforces itself.
Attack an armed person, and the NAP enforces itself.

You can avoid suffering the consequences of these laws for a time, by using aerodynamics or attacking unarmed people instead of armed ones, respectively, but you cannot fly forever, and eventually, you will run up against someone armed, and willing to defend themselves.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 08:13:09 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 08:06:30 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 07:51:52 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 07:44:04 PM

As I said, it accomplishes nothing.

Saying a thing does not make it true. The NAP accomplishes quite a bit. It establishes a moral framework to build a society around.

As I said, either the NAP is law, and applied consistently, in which case a single body enforces it, or it is, as I said, nothing, and accomplishes nothing.

Gravity is a law. Who enforces Gravity?

I think you'll have a tough time detailing your poor analogy. But go ahead and try. If you don't, I will not accept your analogy.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 08:06:30 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 07:51:52 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 07:44:04 PM

As I said, it accomplishes nothing.

Saying a thing does not make it true. The NAP accomplishes quite a bit. It establishes a moral framework to build a society around.

As I said, either the NAP is law, and applied consistently, in which case a single body enforces it, or it is, as I said, nothing, and accomplishes nothing.

Gravity is a law. Who enforces Gravity?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 17, 2012, 07:51:52 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 17, 2012, 07:44:04 PM

As I said, it accomplishes nothing.

Saying a thing does not make it true. The NAP accomplishes quite a bit. It establishes a moral framework to build a society around.

As I said, either the NAP is law, and applied consistently, in which case a single body enforces it, or it is, as I said, nothing, and accomplishes nothing.

Reread every post I've made in this thread.

Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 26. (Read 20458 times)