Topic: What&#039;s so special about the NAP? - page 9. (Read 20467 times)

Are you American? I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability. The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

Check your question:

Quote from: Hawker on July 06, 2012, 02:45:19 PM

...snip...

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

By what right does one man inherits billions of dollars while another inherits nothing? Americans have the right to choose their government the exact same way.

By what rihgt do they intrude upon and violate my property rights, in the very sanctum of the most basic property I own, my own body?

Are you asking me to read the us constitution? The only part I really bothered with was the second amendment :S Or are you asking why the constitution has any right to be treated as valid?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:34:42 PM

Are you American? I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability. The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

Check your question:

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:34:42 PM

...snip...

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

By what right does one man inherits billions of dollars while another inherits nothing? Americans have the right to choose their government the exact same way.

By what right do they intrude upon and violate my property rights, in the very sanctum of the most basic property I own, my own body?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Are you American? I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability. The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

Check your question:

...snip...

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

By what right does one man inherits billions of dollars while another inherits nothing? Americans have the right to choose their government the exact same way.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:29:17 PM

Are you American? I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability. The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on July 06, 2012, 02:26:09 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:21:20 PM

I don't see how you can get from where we are now to where you want to go.

Spend the evening perusing http://agorism.info/ Perhaps you will see, then.

Given that your last book directly contradicts the ideas that you are coming out with, no thanks. I finish work in 90 minutes and then go for a drink. I'm sure that if you have some way to get people to do without seat belt laws, you will be able to find it in the next 90 minutes.

My last book? That would be Healing our World, by Mary Ruwart. Have you read that already?

Ages ago - bitcoin2cash recommended it. But I was talking about Friedman.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: niemivh on July 06, 2012, 02:20:01 PM

I guess, my real question is, what is so wrong with the system of The Constitution? Majority rule with individual rights protected. What is so odorous about this system that we need to revert back to stone-age morality?

Quote from: Hawker on July 06, 2012, 02:26:09 PM

You are inventing rights that are in dispute. They already have rights. If you can take their rights as citizens off them, then no rights are sacred. Why stop there? Perhaps the right to property can be removed as well? Or the right to be a free person? Or the right to equal treatment?

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

Are you American? I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability. The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:21:20 PM

Quote from: niemivh on July 06, 2012, 02:20:01 PM

I don't see how you can get from where we are now to where you want to go.

Spend the evening perusing http://agorism.info/ Perhaps you will see, then.

Given that your last book directly contradicts the ideas that you are coming out with, no thanks. I finish work in 90 minutes and then go for a drink. I'm sure that if you have some way to get people to do without seat belt laws, you will be able to find it in the next 90 minutes.

My last book? That would be Healing our World, by Mary Ruwart. Have you read that already?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

I guess, my real question is, what is so wrong with the system of The Constitution? Majority rule with individual rights protected. What is so odorous about this system that we need to revert back to stone-age morality?

Quote from: niemivh on July 06, 2012, 02:24:15 PM

You are inventing rights that are in dispute. They already have rights. If you can take their rights as citizens off them, then no rights are sacred. Why stop there? Perhaps the right to property can be removed as well? Or the right to be a free person? Or the right to equal treatment?

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:13:29 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:21:20 PM

You are free to outsource the need for willpower as well; as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights, who could possibly object?

But by forcing me to listen to the people they choose to, that is infringing upon my rights. Can you not see that?

You are inventing rights that are in dispute. They already have rights. If you can take their rights as citizens off them, then no rights are sacred. Why stop there? Perhaps the right to property can be removed as well? Or the right to be a free person? Or the right to equal treatment?

I can't see how you can justify taking people's rights away. Leave aside that I think your idea is a prescription for a social disaster; in simple terms you want to take stuff off people that you don't have any right to.

To the Libertarian mindset, the right to alienation, the right to death, the right to fail, the right to anarchy are not seen as the absence of things but actual positive rights to be asserted and defended.

You forgot one: the guaranteed suffering, bullying, and desperation of many around you. These are desirable things to the libertarian.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

I don't see how you can get from where we are now to where you want to go.

Spend the evening perusing http://agorism.info/ Perhaps you will see, then.

Given that your last book directly contradicts the ideas that you are coming out with, no thanks. I finish work in 90 minutes and then go for a drink. I'm sure that if you have some way to get people to do without seat belt laws, you will be able to find it in the next 90 minutes.

niemivh

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:13:29 PM

You are free to outsource the need for willpower as well; as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights, who could possibly object?

But by forcing me to listen to the people they choose to, that is infringing upon my rights. Can you not see that?

You are inventing rights that are in dispute. They already have rights. If you can take their rights as citizens off them, then no rights are sacred. Why stop there? Perhaps the right to property can be removed as well? Or the right to be a free person? Or the right to equal treatment?

I can't see how you can justify taking people's rights away. Leave aside that I think your idea is a prescription for a social disaster; in simple terms you want to take stuff off people that you don't have any right to.

To the Libertarian mindset, the right to alienation, the right to death, the right to fail, the right to anarchy are not seen as the absence of things but actual positive rights to be asserted and defended.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 06, 2012, 02:13:29 PM

I don't see how you can get from where we are now to where you want to go.

Spend the evening perusing http://agorism.info/ Perhaps you will see, then.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

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

You are free to outsource the need for willpower as well; as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights, who could possibly object?

But by forcing me to listen to the people they choose to, that is infringing upon my rights. Can you not see that?

You are inventing rights that are in dispute. They already have rights. If you can take their rights as citizens off them, then no rights are sacred. Why stop there? Perhaps the right to property can be removed as well? Or the right to be a free person? Or the right to equal treatment?

I can't see how you can justify taking people's rights away. Leave aside that I think your idea is a prescription for a social disaster; in simple terms you want to take stuff off people that you don't have any right to.

niemivh

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: niemivh on July 06, 2012, 01:51:23 PM

What else would you like to "opt-out" of in our society?

Ideally, I would be able to opt out, or in, of any restriction, or benefit. If I chose to pay no "social security", I would get no benefit. I have no desire for a "Free Lunch". TANSTAAFL. If I choose not to wear a seat belt, then the insurance companies are welcome to raise my rates. If I wish to maintain that "safe driver" discount, I should keep my belt buckled. The point is that it is my decision, and not someone else's.

Quote from: niemivh on July 06, 2012, 02:00:43 PM

at the core of it was the straitjacket consensus model and the resistance to having leadership. I saw it with my own eyes.

I would point, rather, to the unfocused nature of the event. Of course there will be no consensus when you have "Ron Paulites, Zeitgeisters, Communists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Anarchists, and every other type" all trying to agree. However, I would wager that internal to those individual groups, a consensus was reached about what should be done.

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

You avoided my statement regarding your need to pay back the free premiums that you were getting (as a child) from Social Security. Why shouldn't you pay that back? Were you not covered during that time? Should you not pay that back because you didn't agree to it? Then, if that should be the standard, what should we do with children that may be destitute or starve do to no fault of their own?

Also, anarchy is the natural result of every person 'going their own way' and actually nothing in human interactions works that way. Your friends, your neighbors, your family don't simply cut ties with because you have a difference of opinion.

I guess, my real question is, what is so wrong with the system of The Constitution? Majority rule with individual rights protected. What is so odorous about this system that we need to revert back to stone-age morality?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

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

Quote from: niemivh on July 06, 2012, 01:51:23 PM

What else would you like to "opt-out" of in our society?

Ideally, I would be able to opt out, or in, of any restriction, or benefit. If I chose to pay no "social security", I would get no benefit. I have no desire for a "Free Lunch". TANSTAAFL. If I choose not to wear a seat belt, then the insurance companies are welcome to raise my rates. If I wish to maintain that "safe driver" discount, I should keep my belt buckled. The point is that it is my decision, and not someone else's.

...snip...

Some systems require compulsion to work. People have the right to vote for the lawmakers who enact those laws. Since that is a valuable right, you can't take it from them.

I don't see how you can get from where we are now to where you want to go.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM