What's so special about the NAP? - page 4.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:55:38 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:48:43 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:45:16 AM

No thanks. I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites. A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you. I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

Afraid it'll knock you off that high horse of yours?

Afraid its like being asked to go to church and to let Jesus into my life.

Oohhh... you fear conversion. If you fear you might find out you are wrong, you know already.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:48:43 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:45:16 AM

No thanks. I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites. A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you. I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

Afraid it'll knock you off that high horse of yours?

Afraid its like being asked to go to church and to let Jesus into my life.

BTW, I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern. That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:45:16 AM

No thanks. I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites. A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you. I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

Afraid it'll knock you off that high horse of yours?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:38:35 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:30:36 AM

That logic has not been refuted or Friedman would have recanted. If he has recanted, link to it and I'll see what changed his mind. Otherwise you are only repeating the arguments he refuted.

1) Friedman is not the be all and end-all of Libertarian thought. I felt he had a particularly cogent description of market law, and since that is what we were discussing at the time, That book came first. Perhaps I should have specified which chapters to read.

2) if you would like a completely rational, secular explanation of my arguments, I refer you to Universally Preferable Behaviour, by Stephan Molyneux (whole book, right there on the webpage. Enjoy!)

No thanks. I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites. A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you. I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:30:36 AM

That logic has not been refuted or Friedman would have recanted. If he has recanted, link to it and I'll see what changed his mind. Otherwise you are only repeating the arguments he refuted.

1) Friedman is not the be all and end-all of Libertarian thought. I felt he had a particularly cogent description of market law, and since that is what we were discussing at the time, That book came first. Perhaps I should have specified which chapters to read.

2) if you would like a completely rational, secular explanation of my arguments, I refer you to Universally Preferable Behaviour, by Stephan Molyneux (whole book, right there on the webpage. Enjoy!)

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:25:42 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:21:21 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 04:55:20 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 04:52:39 AM

That's a natural law type argument. I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions.

Give me at least one.

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

Cute. How about one with a more coherent platform than this?

Quote

Establish a team of 1,000 yogic flyers. According to the party, such a group "dissolves collective stress, as indicated by significant reductions in crime, unemployment, sickness, and accidents, and improved economic indicators and quality of life". They would also provide an "invincible defence".

I don't believe in natural law. How can I be expected to rank various versions of nonsense?

Where are you going here? In "The Machinery of Freedom" Friedman sets out the exact same position on natural law based property rights arguments that I have. Its in the "Problems" chapter.

That logic has not been refuted or Friedman would have recanted. If he has recanted, link to it and I'll see what changed his mind. Otherwise you are only repeating the arguments he refuted.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:21:21 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 04:55:20 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 04:52:39 AM

That's a natural law type argument. I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions.

Give me at least one.

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

Cute. How about one with a more coherent platform than this?

Quote

Establish a team of 1,000 yogic flyers. According to the party, such a group "dissolves collective stress, as indicated by significant reductions in crime, unemployment, sickness, and accidents, and improved economic indicators and quality of life". They would also provide an "invincible defence".

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 04:55:20 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 04:52:39 AM

That's a natural law type argument. I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions.

Give me at least one.

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

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 04:52:39 AM

That's a natural law type argument. I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions.

Give me at least one.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 04:00:51 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 03:54:05 AM

They believed that rights came from God. If you are religious, I can see how you would believe that.

I am not religious, and I have already explained how I derive my rights. Voting rights come well down on that tree, and higher up rights trump lower ones. It's not arbitrary. In order to have a right to vote, you have to have an opinion. In order to have an opinion, you have to own your thoughts. In order to own your thoughts, you must own the meat that has those thoughts. You must own your body. If one right conflicts with another, the one further up the dependency chain "wins". Property rights trumps voting rights.

That's a natural law type argument. I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions. So what you have is an opinion. Everyone has opinions. Voting is just a way as any of resolving situations where opinions are different.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 03:54:05 AM

They believed that rights came from God. If you are religious, I can see how you would believe that.

I am not religious, and I have already explained how I derive my rights. Voting rights come well down on that tree, and higher up rights trump lower ones. It's not arbitrary. In order to have a right to vote, you have to have an opinion. In order to have an opinion, you have to own your thoughts. In order to own your thoughts, you must own the meat that has those thoughts. You must own your body. If one right conflicts with another, the one further up the dependency chain "wins". Property rights trumps voting rights.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 03:19:13 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 03:08:20 AM

Do remember that your property rights are legal creations.

The founders of the US, and most, if not all, philosophers would tend to disagree. I'm not too familiar with pre-constitution law, or what has developed over yonder since, but I would wager those are based on similar principles, ie, that laws are instituted not to create rights, but to protect them.

They believed that rights came from God. If you are religious, I can see how you would believe that.

They also believed that there was a need for a state. If you are happy to accept that they were right about property rights, perhaps you accept that they were right about voting rights as well? Or is their approval only relevant to the particular rights that are your favourites?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 03:08:20 AM

Do remember that your property rights are legal creations.

The founders of the US, and most, if not all, philosophers would tend to disagree. I'm not too familiar with pre-constitution law, or what has developed over yonder since, but I would wager those are based on similar principles, ie, that laws are instituted not to create rights, but to protect them.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 02:17:18 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 02:07:07 AM

You have not given a decent reason why you are entitled to take either right away. You just say you like one right better than the other.

No, the right to her "gazillions" is part of her property rights. Rightfully, I cannot infringe upon that.
Her right to vote, however, does tend to infringe upon my property rights. How would you propose we reconcile that?

Do remember that your property rights are legal creations. Take away the law and you take away the property right as well. For an example, talk to Palestinians who lost the homes in 1967 or to Armenians who lost their homes in 1915. Once the state they belonged to was destroyed, they ceased to own the homes and farms that they had legal title documents to.

So, both her right to vote and her right to property come from law and there are legal ways to resolve any conflicts. You have not offered a basis for taking either right off her.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 02:07:07 AM

You have not given a decent reason why you are entitled to take either right away. You just say you like one right better than the other.

No, the right to her "gazillions" is part of her property rights. Rightfully, I cannot infringe upon that.
Her right to vote, however, does tend to infringe upon my property rights. How would you propose we reconcile that?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 07, 2012, 08:43:04 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2012, 01:51:56 PM

That's a perfectly valid opinion. If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money? If not, why are your opinions special?

If you want to try to make a reasoned case that "all property is theft", I'll be happy to listen to it. But you can't respond to a reasoned argument with "That's what you think". My opinions are special because I present reasoned arguments to back them up. You are welcome to engage those arguments or ignore them, but if you aren't going to engage them, I request that you not pretend to.

My opinion is that Paris Hilton inherits the right to gazillions and inherits the right to vote. Both are valuable rights and the vast majority of people would be rightly outraged if someone tried to take them away.

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 07, 2012, 01:40:53 PM

...snip...
A "right to do what you wish with what is yours" does not have the same standing as a "right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with what is theirs". One is justly within one's scope of moral authority and the other makes a mockery of the concept of rights.

You have not given a decent reason why you are entitled to take either right away. You just say you like one right better than the other.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2012, 01:51:56 PM

That's a perfectly valid opinion. If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money? If not, why are your opinions special?

If you want to try to make a reasoned case that "all property is theft", I'll be happy to listen to it. But you can't respond to a reasoned argument with "That's what you think". My opinions are special because I present reasoned arguments to back them up. You are welcome to engage those arguments or ignore them, but if you aren't going to engage them, I request that you not pretend to.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: fergalish on July 07, 2012, 05:57:51 PM

Is that your opinion? Or is that somehow, like Moonshadow thought, a non-arbitrary definition? Just to be clear: I disagree, so what you say can only be your opinion. I genuinely would be scared shitless if I saw some random stranger walking down the road carrying an A.A.R. I would *very definitely* consider it a direct threat to my safety, and would *very definitely* hit him very hard over the head with an iron bar if I thought I could do so safely. I would then disarm him, and confiscate or destroy the weapons. How exactly is this not consistent with the NAP, given that I genuinely perceive a threat to my safety?

It doesn't really matter what you actually did perceive because only reasonable perceptions justify the pre-emptive use of force. Whether your perception of a threat is reasonable or not would depend on the full context. But if it's not objectively reasonable, it doesn't matter that you actually felt threatened. Someone might actually feel threatened around tall men on dark streets, but that doesn't justify using force against them.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:11:58 PM

If 100% consensus cannot be reached, splinter until it can, each going their own way.

And here is an article which says the same thing, but in much greater detail:

http://c4ss.org/content/10691

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: asdf on July 07, 2012, 06:43:55 PM

Also, consider that the victims will probably be members of a protection agency, which will have it's reputation staked on resolving the issue in a responsible manner; preventing activity X or seeking arbitration.

Oh yeah... derp. Forgot about that. Not to mention the insurance agency, who has to pay the death benefit to somebody...

Topic: What's so special about the NAP? - page 4. (Read 20467 times)