Bitcoin Forum

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

Self-defense, defense of others.

But I'll point out that we already have a NAP thread...

We have many NAP threads. Specifically, the question is how NAP can ensure that it stays NAP. I've never (nor will I ever) see an answer to that question, because NAP, in all its simplicity, does not provide for it.

So I guess that's the reason you glossed over the answer?

It seems meaningless, but the truth is that you actually don't get it...

It's not a law to be enforced. Yes, I know "if no one will force people to abide by the NAP then no one will abide. If people do use force then it's not NAP. therefore it's meaningless.". This is correct in itself, but shows that you don't understand that NAP is a PRINCIPAL not a LAW.

A principal doesn't need "a means of remaining a principal", like a law needs a means of being enforced. It's just a principal.

The important question is, should we base social organization on the principal of non-aggression? Currently, we base social organisation on the principal that a monopoly on force should be used to organize society and we decide what force gets used on who through voting.

Now, most people believe that the latter is preferable. That is why the state exists; it is has the moral sanction of the people. In a free society most people believe that the former is preferable. The state cannot exists in this society because it is entirely based on aggression.

So if we're going to have a real discussion we should be talking about which principal of social organisation is preferable. Libertarians are just saying "let's go with the NAP". To them it's just a matter of an ideological shift; a battle of ideas. NAP doesn't need a means of remaining NAP, it just needs the moral sanction of the population, just like the state needs the moral sanction to remain in power.

That is why we are here debating with you, trying to get you to accept the NAP as the moral choice. The only barrier to a free society is the majority of people who believe that violence is a moral and effective principal on which to base social organisation.

asdf: I think the debate here is not whether the NAP is morally acceptable, but whether it's practical to implement.  FirstAscent is arguing that any system adhering strictly to the NAP will eventually evolve into a system violating the NAP due to human nature.

Sure. That's what I meant when I said "should we base social organization on the principal of non-aggression?". Should we from a moral basis. Should we from a pragmatic basis.

On a micro level, transactions can be voluntary or involuntary (involving violent coercion). Which is more practical? It's hard to make a pragmatic case for coercion here. In a voluntary transaction, both parties win, there is an overall net gain. In a forceful transaction, one party wins and there is typically a net loss.

On a macro level, I've found that all social problems have at their root cause a violation of the non-aggression principal and a disrespect for property. Which makes sense when you understand that coercive transactions pervert the incentive structures. When non-voluntary transactions are acceptable you create an environment where socially destructive behavior is incentivised; the function of the market is corrupted.

NAP is not a policy to "implement". It's a principal that people can either abide by or not. Advocates of NAP are not saying that NAP should be some sort of law or decree imposed upon society, that would be contradictory. We are just saying that it's a good principal for people to live by. We are trying to convince others of this, because everyone benefits. Some can't accept it because of their desire to use the force of the state to impose their personal vision of society on others.

So, do you think that people should live by this principal? Should people live by the principal that it is wrong to use violence in human interaction, except in self defense? Or is this an impractical principal for people to have? Does it lead to social disorder?

There is no such thing as human nature. Humans adapt to their environment. A person growing up in a violent, abusive environment will become a violent, abusive adult. Latest science backs this up.

These self referential assertions about something called NAP do not address the question posed within the title of this thread.

Practically define the means by which NAP enforces itself from not evolving into a state. Let me give you an example for simplicity: Joe and a 1,000 others live in NAP-land. Substitute whatever number you want for the population. Now let's say Joe and his friends have a fancy for ruling, rather than adhering to the NAP. Assume it. Better yet, anticipate it. How does NAP stop Joe from transforming NAP-land into Joe-land?

It's just a way to live, like vegetarianism or celibacy. If you live it you live it if you don't you don't.

I have come to the conclusion that none of you actually understand how insignificant NAP is without a proper solution and answer to the question posed in this thread title.

Answer this then: What provisions does Christianity have to stay Christianity?

It might be insignificant to you that I don't go around initiating violence, but there are people including myself who find it quite significant.

Do you initiate violence?

Christianity does not depend on everyone within a region being Christian to work. NAP does require everyone to be a devout NAPster, else it simply doesn't actually exist or function.

You find it significant that others don't initiate violence? That's neat. So because you find it significant that others don't initiate violence, then the NAP must be the best thing since sliced bread? Is that what you're saying?

Let me figure out your reasoning. There are others who aren't violent. Therefore, the NAP self enforces itself. Hmm. What's missing here? Ahh! Maybe, just maybe, an answer to the original question posed in the title of this thread!


No.

That is where you're wrong. In a region where the people follow the Non-Aggression Principle, those who do not are know as criminals. Plain and simple.


Great! You're already following the Non-Aggression Principle. What's your problem with it, then?

A lot.

1. People can be marginalized, bullied, lynched, and maimed or killed by "Y" type events.

2. The environment is destroyed by edge effects.

3. It has no provision to protect global resources.

4. The unregulated free market will (as it always does) drive the resources of diminishing natural capital into non-existence.

5. There is no consistency with regard to rules when venturing off your property.

6. It appears to be a lawsuit happy society.

7. It appears to be a society with endless tolls and fees.

8. Freedom is heavily restricted except for when on your own property, and even then that is suspect, because of the money that must be paid for protection to ensure that freedom.

9. Even if it was perfect (which it is not), it has no provision to ensure its continued survival. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91793.0

You do realize that's a link to this thread, right?

Yes. And it seems to demonstrate that nobody can offer a solution to the problem articulated in its title.

Just one question, as there is something I don't understand. You said in the statement above that the people follow the non-aggression principle in said region.

Let's be clear: Imagine a neighborhood where all the houses are painted green. I ask how it will be that it can be guaranteed that all the houses will stay green. And you reply: "In a neighborhood with green-house-loving homeowners, those who paint their houses brown will be known as brown-house-loving homeowners."

Am I then supposed to assume that their is some law that is enforced which says only green house homeowners may live in this neighborhood?

Before you reply, please consider the scenario where more than half the neighborhood either has a change of heart or moves on to somewhere else. Following this, many houses are painted a different color, and then less than half of the houses remain green.

Let's examine what you said once more:


Plain and simple, it is essentially a tautology.

No, but then, "Brown-house-loving homeowner" does not mean anything beyond people who like living in a brown house. Criminal, on the other hand, has a very specific meaning:

The crime in question, of course, is aggressing against someone:

I'm still waiting for the answer which will show how your NAP-Land stays a NAP-Land.

I think Christianity is a really good example, actually. Forget the morality and theological stuff for a second and assume Christianity has an economic reason for existence: it's a social group with clear benefits. You might be putting yourself at a slight disadvantage by being nonviolent and going to church every Sunday, but it's outweighed by the social advantages. Christians want to do business with other good Christians who can be trusted.

If I'm an Atheist, accepting Christmas presents without offering anything in return, it may seem as if I've cleverly beaten the system. Free presents! But in everyone else's eyes I'm a cheapskate outsider, and the gift-giver has demonstrated his kindness and trustworthiness as a future associate.

So let's apply that to the NAP. If I start a crime spree shooting people, then members of the defending posse are showing that they "play by the rules" of the group and can be trusted more.

This is where things start to get messy. How much can I get away with? How much centralization of force will people tolerate? I don't know for sure, but I assume it's similar to religion - the higher the local percentage of believers, the stronger the social norms. Much weirder social structures have already existed than "don't start fights".

Btw "NAPster" I love it! :D

Christianity has had to evolve to stay relevant. And it's still losing out.

So your system will cease being NAP when there are enough people who want something different?

How is that different from any other system?

because of people not aggressing against each other?

NAP causes environmental destruction...? Actually, governments are the worst polluters and remove market incentives to clean the environment.

"provision"? NAP is not an act of parliament, it's not a political system.

Protect global resources from what? In a free society resources are privately owned, the private owner pays protection of his resources and has personal interest in maintaining their value.

Actually, the free market make the most efficient use of scarce resources possible. It's the government backed by force that causes all the waste as it is unaccountable the values of the market (the price system).

Standards of behaviors will emerge just like they do in software protocols eg. bitcoin. The market will solve these problems in an efficient manner. You don't need to violently impose rules that the "majority" feels should exist.

It seems that this is what we have now. More laws == more lawsuits. In a free society, where laws aren't imposed by an unaccountable monopoly on force, the laws or "socially acceptable behaviors" will be optimised for economic efficiency. People will only pay for protections that's economically viable and protections will only mean "protection from force".

It's appears so at first glance, but you have to accept that the market is vastly more intelligent than any individual and will converge to an efficient solution for roads and any other infrastructure that the government currently subsidies/monopolizes. Destructive behaviors will be rejected by the market, such as building a road that completely encloses a community and restricting travel, this could even be considered an act of aggression.

You are free to do as you will, except to be an aggressor against another or their property.

Arguing that it would be too expensive is a bit asinine when the government currently takes > 50% or our wealth. You can have mafia protection or buy it in a competitive market, surely free market protection will be cheaper.

Are you saying that giving people the right to initiate force will somehow ensure continued survival?


You identify some legitimate social problems: Gang violence, environmental destruction, resource depletion. Why do you take if for granted that the only way to solve these problems is by initiating force? Don't you see the causal relationship between these social problems and the existence of the state? The government creates this mess and it does it all by initiating force.


When most people accept the NAP and see that the state is a direct violation of it, the state will naturally dissolve. So let me ask you: How will you form a state in a free society where most people accept the NAP? Without the moral blessing of the people, how will you collect taxes? how will you enforce laws? when these things are seen as a direct violations of the core principal of society?

Remember, the government NEEDS the perceived moral legitimacy to maintain it's control. That is why we are constantly propagandized by the education system and the media about the virtue of the state. A free society will not only maintain itself, as you contest, but will in fact emerge from statism as the critical mass of NAP adherents is reached.

asdf,

Mostly I saw a bunch of repeated assumptions about free markets with no actual research on your part.

1. No.

2. No: Rich entities and the checkerboard syndrome. Presumably, rich entities exist in NAP-land, and everything about NAP encourages the checkerboard effect.

3. No. Think and research harder, and please don't make me repeat myself fifty times.

4. No. Pull your head out of the libertarian economics book and increase your knowledge. Again, I don't want to repeat myself, especially to deaf ears.

5. No. Humans are far from consistent.

6. So you say. Where have you seen this in action?

7. The market operates on limited knowledge, and more precisely, within the entire market are sub markets composed of a limited set of individuals primarily interested in satisfying their own interests by using a limited set of knowledge. Oh my gosh, please go study my comments in another recent thread.

8. Wealth is relative to what is available to you. So many factors, and such a simple little reply you made.

Sooo... you're not making a case against NAP with point 1.?


I don't know what checkerboard syndrome is. link?

How does NAP lead to the environment being destroyed by edge effects? If you own land and someones actions are damaging your property, you enter arbitration for damages. I don't see how this is a problem with NAP.

How does initiating force prevent environmental destruction?


I feel the same way about you.

People pay for the protection of their own property and any natural resources there of. Why is violence necessary?


Is it your position then, that the initiation of force will prevent resource depletion?

Really, answer the question, Yes or No, and back it up with reasoning. This kind of response gets us no where. Just saying "your wrong, read a book" is a cop out.

Resources will be used because we want to use them. How is it productive or desirable to use force to prevent the consumption of resources that people wish to consume? If it's a matter of efficiency then I make the case that voluntary trade is more efficient than coercive trade. If you disagree with this premise, please say so and why.


True, but this is a non-sequiter. humans establish social customs in all facets of life. We shake hands when we greet. we put the fork on the left and the knife on the right. We talk the same language. This is not achieved through force. though these customs may vary from culture to culture, still, within a culture, social standards emerge. I see no reason why they should not emerge with regard to "social etiquette when occupying others property".

You think that people other than the property owner should use force to impose their own standard of behavior for people on their property?


seen what? A lawsuit happy state or a free society where laws are determined by the market?

For the first, pretty much every state is like this. The number of laws and lawyers just keeps growing.

For the second, see Lex mercatoria.

Besides, the point is that this is how the market functions in general; the customer is always right. If you are in the business of arbitration or dispute resolution, you will have "laws" that your customers think are best, if not you go out of business. If the customer wants lots of laws and law suits then this is what they will have and vice versa.


The knowledge of the market is enshrined in the price of all goods and services. This is all the knowledge the market requires to make efficient economic decisions. Do you agree with this?

Will it be tolls or something else? I don't know. Voluntary trade will most certainly find a more optimal solution to transportation than a bureaucrat with a gun.


Seems you don't actually have a response and are hiding behind your dismissive comments. Your whole post was full of "simple little replys".

I addressed the point about paying for protection. Sure wealth is relative, so what? It still costs more to protect your property when there is no competitive market for protection. This applies for everyone, regardless of wealth available. Do you dispute this?


As to your other post. What assumptions about the free market have I made that are false? Let's get to the heart of the matter here.