Bitcoin Forum

Well, I happened to be debating religion, atheism, agnosticism with a religious friend a while ago.  I remembered something I learned in debating classes a while ago which is, in a real debate, you do not necessarily hold the views you are debating for.  So I challenged my friend to swap sides and debate the pro-atheism case while I debated pro-religion. It was very interesting, and both of us learned something.

So I propose that the pro-NAP members elect one (or at most two) representatives who will debate AGAINST NAP, while the anti-NAP people will choose one or two representatives who will debate FOR NAP.  All chosen debaters of the discussion will be honor-bound to debate as effectively, elegantly, persuasively AND correctly as they can and NEVER NEVER within that thread post any message against their assigned side of the debate.

I personally would love to hold the honor of being one of the anti-NAP reps (and therefore debating pro-NAP), but I'm only intermittently online and there are many far better anti-NAPsters than me on this forum.

This raises a question for Theymos - is it possible for SMF to restrict a thread to just certain members?  It would be most unfortunate if something enlightening came of the discussion but the message got lost in the noise. If not we'll just have to precede each message with a header that goes something like: "Please do not reply here - to discuss this thread please post here [link to another discussion thread]" and ask the mods to remove any unwanted posts.

What do ye think?  Is it a good idea?

Hmm. I think what you are asking is somewhat not what you want...

Should we debate pro-and-con on The Golden Rule? Or would you rather discuss how Christianity has diverged from it's teachings?

The Non-Aggression Principle is just that, a principle. In theory, no different from The Golden Rule. What you want to debate, I think is the consequences of a society based on that principle, not the principle itself. You do, I hope, agree that striking someone without provocation is wrong?

Yes, you are correct, I wish to see a debate about the merits or drawbacks of a society which uses only the NAP as a guiding principle.  I do not wish to debate the NAP in this thread, merely talk about a NAP debate.  Like a meta-NAP thread.  Let's talk about talking about the NAP.

We need to define "NAP society" first. We can't work on the premise that 100% of people follow NAP absolutely, otherwise there is no debate, we live in a perfect world already ;-)

So let's say, for the sake of debate, that between %50 and 99% of people adhere to the NAP.

Are we going to discuss an established NAP society or how one might emerge from the current statism paradigm, once the majority accept NAP?

Important points of discussion could be:

• Who will build the roads?
• How will it defend against external threat?
• What about monopolies taking over the world?
• "power vacuum" - a new state will emerge as soon as it's dissolved.
• Resource scarcity.
• Environmental issues.
• Dispute resolution.

I'd actually be interested in debating just one or two of those in depth without the flipped sides.

The idea is that you flip sides to get out of your comfort zone.  I like it.

Back on topic, in the Machinery of Freedom, Friendman shows the Iceland example of how anarchic societies break down.  An outside power interferes sponsoring one faction, that becomes overwhelmingly strong and eventually becomes the state.  We've seen anarchy in Somalia break down exactly the same way after what appeared to be several decent years.  What would you call that topic?  "Foreign Interference" perhaps ?

I think that would come under "How will it defend against external threat?", though, a special case.

Should pick one or two and start a separate thread for each?

Do any pro/anti NAPsters wish to propose themselves as the rep?

Good points. I suppose the ideal situation would be to discuss how a NAP society might best function long after the transition had taken place. Assuming we actually got that far, we could then move to establish how best to achieve a smooth transition.  If both sides pick good debaters, then I would guess that we won't even get that far, as a good anti-NAP debater actually debating pro-NAP should be indistinguishable from a bona-fide pro-NAP debater, and vice-versa.  Therefore the debate should seem identical to the extant NAP debates which, unless I'm mistaken, have never ended with a bilateral consensus.

I PM'd theymos to ask about restricting posting rights in a thread.  He replied with this thread about "local rules" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=31782.0).  To put it simply, any OP can give instructions to the moderators.  I've never seen this feature in use, so I guess the OP must simply write "Local Rules: 1. ... 2. ..." in the thread's first post (and have clear unambiguous rules).

All we need now are our debaters who are willing to swap sides.  Is there enough interest in this?

It's been tried, and Hawker switched sides rather admirably... but nobody picked up the "Government is good for the environment" side of things. I can't speak for anyone else, But for me, it was because I am unwilling to present arguments I know are flawed, and FirstAscent has been unable to elucidate his points without lapsing into trolling or shouting at us that we should go buy a book. I think he works for a publishing house.

No thanks.  I can't step inside what I know the truth not to be and argue topics as character actor as if the results of such beliefs are as irrelevant as a high-school debate class.  These ideas drastically influence the world we live in and will pass on to the next generation and therefore should be regarded a little more seriously.  Moreover, if the person holding something to be true hasn't considered the oppositions proposition true then they shouldn't be debating anything - so perhaps those that realize this applies to them should take up such a challenge!


The NAP, in the other thread and when I was discussing it, was considered from the aspect of definition first - that is, what does NAP even mean?  And not the simple words of it, but rather it's application and thought-process behind it as a universal moral principle.  Words are cheap and words not intended to mean anything, but instead set off on a course where the results of thinking about those words will result in contradictions is the very intention of sophistic ideology.  If the words of what is supposedly a moral tenant of an ideology (and the central tenant according to M. Rothbard!) fail to mean anything directly, or fail to mean anything by their meaning something different to everyone, then that principle should be discarded as useless in determining morality.  The NAP already fails this first test.  How are we (those that are not "Pro NAP" or "NAPsters") supposed to be arguing for the NAP when we can't even define what the NAP universally means to all of us?  The NAP, like Self Ownership, and like the entirety of Libertarianism is a moving target and attempting to go to the next step (debate) prior to definition will never address this problem.

I have found a solid, logical, and internally consistent definition of the NAP. would you like a link to it?

Yes please!  How have we been using the flawed and worthless version of NAP all this time?!

And it better not be the same attempted axiom with a few exceptions.  Statements that are supposed to be universal statements of moral truths shouldn't require a laundry list of exceptions after them.

Here you go: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) (http://board.freedomainradio.com/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/09/25/universally-preferable-behavior-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics.aspx#_Toc180495032)

In which thread was it tried?  Can you link please?



The point of switching side is more than just an academic exercise - it's definitely more relevant than a high school debate, but that the origin.  If you, an anti-NAPster, try to debate pro-NAP, then you will have to conduct a lot of research to see why and where the anti-NAP argument fails.  Likewise a pro-NAPster will have to dig into the details of why the proNAP argument fails because he is debating anti-NAP.

It's like Hawker says - it gets you out of your comfort zone.  It's too easy to reject other people's challenges to your beliefs and opinions, but when you yourself make the challenge, it's not so easy.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92238.0

How can anybody take a side?
It's angels on the head of a pin.
Has no one here heard of DNA? Genetics? Survival of the fittest?
NAP will help me survive? anti-nap?
Maybe if I just ignore you all I will survive anyway? - lions I'm sure are ignoring this and still surviving, despite being somewhat aggressive.

NAP actually is a survival trait.

Look at it this way:

We start with two pairs of people who disagree with one another, we'll call them A and B, and C and D. A and B do not believe in the NAP. They have no problem initiating violence. C and D do follow NAP, and do not view initiating violence to be a good idea. A and B solve their differences violently, and only one survives. C and D solve their differences peacefully, and both survive.

But survival is dependent on situation. You believe in NAP, but you are in Rwanda  and in order to survive you have to take part in genocide. So you take part in genocide. NAP (or anti-NAP) is ideology that ignores context.

What you have there is a "lifeboat scenario." The vast majority of life is not lived in a lifeboat. I would argue, as well, that you've presented a false dichotomy. There are more options than "take part in genocide" and "die." For instance, just off the top of my head, there is "attempt to prevent genocide" or "leave Rwanda", both of which would be in line with NAP.

Steven Molyneux?!

Jessuz, I thought we could do better than that.

Does the burden of proof no longer rely on someone trying to prove something?  Then why would the person have to disprove what their conception of NAP was prior to the person who was promoting NAP could even prove it was a non-contradictory, definable axiom?

It would be great if human psychology worked that way, but there is no evidence - the Abu Ghraib prison guards were all shown to be decent normal people previously.
Philip Zimbardo's Standford prison experiment showed that if you place people in this kind of situation they will inevitably behave in this kind of way irrespective of their previous ideals or morality.
Every single decent person would proclaim that they couldn't possibly do that sort of thing, but evidence shows that people placed in unusual or extreme situations will inevitably behave in this way.
It would take a particularly heroic individual to stand up against such a situation.
NPA is a fine ideal (as is 'love thy neighbour') - but it doesn't fit the reality of human nature.

Yes, that was the libertarian equivalent of a rick-roll. But did you read that book, or just dismiss it out of hand? I know you read books you disagree with, if only so you can post diatribes about them on amazon. So, if you haven't read it, please do, and post your review in the "book club" thread. I'd love to hear it.

If you hadn't brought up the prison experiment, I was about to. There's a really simple answer to that: Don't put yourself in that situation. If you are put into that situation, leave. Because if you stay, you will act in a way that will make you hate yourself.

Well, I sure as hell missed that thread. You're right - good try Hawker. Shame the NAPsters weren't willing to challenge their own point of view. Suggests a certain degree of insecurity, or at least a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the validity of other people's opinions.  I don't mean the validity of their arguments, just the fact that people are fully within their rights to have a different opinion than yours.

Myrkul, why did you bother posting in that thread at all?  Just to spoil the debate?

Ok then, treat it as just an academic exercise - mental training if you like. See if you can debate the pro-NAP position better than the NAPsters can. At least, afterwards, you won't know less than you already know.

My reasons were clear. To make sure that Hawker had his position straight. Specifically, I was attempting to hammer out a specification of the rights that were established. He specified both a respect of property rights, and "no fixed rights," so I was attempting to get that cleared up.

Had FA been able to clearly explain his concerns to me without directing me to read books I have neither the desire nor the expendable income to pick up, I would have championed them. I was not about to throw soft pitches to Hawker, and all the environmental arguments I know are easily defeated.

Again, the problem of definition and which version of the NAP is to be debated is a roadblock to doing so.

Oh my.  I've been Molyneux-rolled.

 :D


At least, when I read this I won't have to see Steven Molyneux's smirking, stupid face or his annoying, patronizing voice.  I'll read it, but it might be next week before I can get around to it.

Is this the sample you'd like me to read, or is it this entire book/essay that S.M. posted on his blog?

=================  Excerpt Below =======================================


The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)

A moral rule is often proposed called the non-aggression principle, or NAP. It is also called being a “porcupine pacifist,” insofar as a porcupine only uses “force” in self-defense. The NAP is basically the proposition that “the initiation of the use of force is morally wrong.” Or, to put it more in the terms of our conversation: “The non-initiation of force is universally preferable.”

When we analyze a principle such as the NAP, there are really only seven possibilities: three in the negative, three in the positive, and one neutral:


The initiation of the use of force is always morally wrong.


The initiation of the use of force is sometimes morally wrong.


The initiation of the use of force is never morally wrong.


The initiation of the use of force has no moral content.


The initiation of the use of force is never morally right.


The initiation of the use of force is sometimes morally right.


The initiation of the use of force is always morally right.

As we have seen above, however, UPB is an “all or nothing” framework. If an action is universally preferable, then it cannot be limited by individual, geography, time etc. If it is wrong to murder in Algiers, then it is also wrong to murder in Belgium, the United States, at the North Pole and on the moon. If it is wrong to murder yesterday, then it cannot be right to murder tomorrow. If it is wrong for Bob to murder, then it must also be wrong for Doug to murder.

Uniting the NAP with UPB, thus allows us to whittle these seven statements down to three:


It is universally preferable to initiate the use of force.


It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.


The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences.

This is the natural result of applying the requirement of rational consistency to ethical propositions. A rational theory cannot validly propose that opposite results can occur from the same circumstances. A scientific theory cannot argue that one rock must fall down, but another rock must fall up. Einstein did not argue that E=MC2 on a Thursday, but that E=MC3 on a Friday, or on Mars, or during a blue moon. The law of conservation – that matter can be neither created nor destroyed – does not hold true only when you really, really want it to, or if you pay a guy to make it so, or when a black cat crosses your path. The laws of physics are not subject to time, geography, opinion or acts of Congress.

This consistency must also be required for systems of ethics, or UPB, and we will subject generally accepted moral theories to this rigour in Part 2, in a few pages.

However, since we are dealing with the question of consistency, it is well worth taking the time to deal with our capacity for inconsistency.


Lifeboat Scenarios


The fact that UPB only validates logically consistent moral theories does not mean that there can be no conceivable circumstances under which we may choose to act against the tenets of such a theory.

For instance, if we accept the universal validity of property rights, smashing a window and jumping into someone’s apartment without permission would be a violation of his property rights. However, if we were hanging off a flagpole outside an apartment window, and about to fall to our deaths, few of us would decline to kick in the window and jump to safety for the sake of obeying an abstract principle.

In the real world, it would take a staggeringly callous person to press charges against a man who destroyed a window in order to save his life – just as it would take a staggeringly irresponsible man to refuse to pay restitution for said window. The principle of “avoidability” is central here – a man hanging off a flagpole has little choice about kicking in a window. A man breaking into your house to steal things clearly has the capacity to avoid invading your property – he is not cornered, but is rather the initiator of the aggression. This is similar to the difference between the woman whose man cheats on her, versus the woman whose man locks her in the basement.

This is not to say that breaking the window to save your life is not wrong. It is, but it is a wrong that almost all of us would choose to commit rather than die. If I were on the verge of starving to death, I would steal an apple. This does not mean that it is right for me to steal the apple – it just means that I would do it – and must justly accept the consequences of my theft. (Of course, if I were such an incompetent or confused human being that I ended up on the verge of starvation, incarceration might be an improvement to my situation.)
Gray Areas

The fact that certain “gray areas” exist in the realm of ethics has often been used as a justification for rank relativism. Since on occasion some things remain unclear (e.g. who initiated the use of violence), and since it is impossible to define objective and exact rules for every conceivable situation, the conclusion is often drawn that nothing can ever be known for certain, and that no objective rules exist for any situation.

This is false.

All reasonable people recognize that biology is a valid science, despite the fact that some animals are born with “one-off” mutations. The fact that a dog can be born with five legs does not mean that “canine” becomes a completely subjective category. The fact that certain species of insects are challenging to differentiate does not mean that there is no difference between a beetle and a whale.

For some perverse reason, intellectuals in particular take great joy in the wanton destruction of ethical, normative and rational standards. This could be because intellectuals have so often been paid by corrupt classes of individuals such as politicians, priests and kings – or it could be that a man often becomes an intellectual in order to create justifications for his own immoral behaviour. Whatever the reason, most modern thinkers have become a species of “anti-thinker,” which is very odd. It would be equivalent to there being an enormous class of “biologists” who spent their entire lives arguing that the science of biology was impossible. If the science of biology is impossible, it scarcely makes sense to become a biologist, any more than an atheist should fight tooth and nail to become a priest.
Shades of Gray

In the realm of “gray areas,” there are really only three possibilities.


There are no such things as gray areas.


Certain gray areas do exist.


All knowledge is a gray area.

Clearly, option one can be easily discarded. Option three is also fairly easy to discard. The statement “all knowledge is a gray area” is a self-detonating proposition, as we have seen above, in the same way that “all statements are lies” also self-detonates.

Thus we must go with option two, which is that certain gray areas do exist, and we know that they are gray relative to the areas that are not gray. Oxygen exists in space, and also underwater, but not in a form or quantity that human beings can consume. The degree of oxygenation is a gray area, i.e. “less versus more”; the question of whether or not human beings can breathe water is surely black and white.

A scientist captured by cannibals may pretend to be a witch-doctor in order to escape – this does not mean that we must dismiss the scientific method as entirely invalid.

Similarly, there can be extreme situations wherein we may choose to commit immoral actions, but such situations do not invalidate the science of morality, any more than occasional mutations invalidate the science of biology. In fact, the science of biology is greatly advanced through the acceptance and examination of mutations – and similarly, the science of ethics is only strengthened through an examination of “lifeboat scenarios,” as long as such an examination is not pursued obsessively.
Universality and Exceptions

Before we start using our framework of Universally Preferable Behaviour to examine some commonly held ethical beliefs, we must deal with the question of “exceptions.”

Using the above “lifeboat scenarios,” the conclusion is often drawn that “the good” is simply that which is “good” for an individual man’s life.

In ethical arguments, if I am asked whether I would steal an apple rather than starve to death – and I say “yes” – the following argument is inevitably made:


Everyone would rather steal an apple than starve to death.


Thus everyone universally prefers stealing apples to death by starvation.


Thus it is universally preferable to steal apples rather than starve to death.


Thus survival is universally preferable to property rights.


Thus what is good for the individual is the ultimate moral standard.

This has been used as the basis for a number of ethical theories and approaches, from Nietzsche to Rand. The preference of each individual for survival is translated into ethical theories that place the survival of the individual at their centre. (Nietzsche’s “will to power” and Rand’s “that which serves man’s life is the good.”)

This kind of “biological hedonism” may be a description of the “drive to survive,” but it is only correct insofar as it describes what people actually do, not what they should do.

It also introduces a completely unscientific subjectivism to the question of morality. For instance, if it is morally permissible to steal food when you are starving, how much food can you steal? How hungry do you have to be? Can you steal food that is not nutritious? How nutritious does the food have to be in order to justify stealing it? How long after stealing one meal are you allowed to steal another meal? Are you allowed to steal meals rather than look for work or appeal to charity?

Also, if I can make more money as a hit man than a shopkeeper, should I not pursue violence as a career? It certainly enhances my survival... and so on and so on.

As we can see, the introduction of “what is good for man in the abstract – or what most people do – is what is universally preferable” destroys the very concept of morality as a logically consistent theory, and substitutes mere biological drives as justifications for behaviour. It is an explanation of behaviour, not a proposed moral theory.
The Purpose – and the Dangers

With your patient indulgence, one final question needs to be addressed before we plunge into a definition and test how various moral propositions fit into the UPB framework. Since the hardest work lies ahead, we should pause for a moment and remind ourselves why we are putting ourselves through all this rigor and difficulty.

In other words, before we plunge on, it is well worth asking the question: “Why bother?”

Why bother with defining ethical theories? Surely good people don’t need them, and bad people don’t consult them. People will do what they prefer, and just make up justifications as needed after the fact – why bother lecturing people about morality?

Of course, the danger always exists that an immoral person will attack you for his own hedonistic purposes. It could also be the case that, despite clean and healthy living, you may be struck down by cancer before your time – the former does not make the science of morality irrelevant, any more than the latter makes the sciences of medicine, nutrition and exercise irrelevant. One demonstrable effect of a rational science of morality must be to reduce your chances of suffering immoral actions such as theft, murder and rape – and it is by this criterion that we shall also judge the moral rules proposed in Part 3 of this book

Wow... Didn't expect you to copy/paste a whole chapter... The key is in this part:


One of those statements is true. The other two are false. I would hold forth that "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force." is true, and I would guess that you would hold forth that "The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences." is the true statement. (or at least, I hope that's the one you are suggesting, if you do not consider mine to be the true one...)

The clear, concise, internally consistent example of NAP is "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force." Which is to say, that initiating force is wrong, regardless of race, religion, creed, or costume.

So many issues with the above declaration:

- Obviously I am willing to explain to those willing to listen. Let me know when you are willing to listen.

- The information contained in the books is worth the money, given your general interest in wanting a better world. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.

- As for your opinion on environmental arguments being easy to defeat, I tend to find that individuals who make such statements haven't actually educated themselves on the finer nuances, facts and data available to them. As an example, an unwillingness to actually, say, read books on the subject. Who might that be?

Willingness <> ability. I'm willing to listen, but you are not able to explain.

Let me make it absolutely clear: I do not have the expendable income to purchase those books. Unless you think my landlord will take them as rent?

I don't know how you see "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" as analogous to "that initiating force is wrong, regardless of race, religion, creed, or costume".  These seem rather divergent, that is, SMs version of the NAP is obviously true, reasonable, and worthy of the title of "moral axiom" critically depending on how you define "universally preferable".  It has potential.  But you're version isn't the same, it basically is a reactive approach to morality.  The "Never" is basically implicit in your argument.

Here's my system in the most crudest terms possible (for brevities sake): there is established a monopoly of power that has the sole legitimacy of proactive force in the system (excluding immediate self defense).  The people that constitute and enforce that power are selected by those in that system that are capable of making such decisions (capable by the distinguishing factor of adulthood).

That's quite possibly the most boiled-down I could get codify my system.  It is the system of Elected Representation, although I think it could be drastically improved, it is better than the non-system as codified by the strict adherence to the other (perhaps non-Steven Molyneux) flavors of the NAP.

That said, Steven Molyneux is an anarchist and so I'm not holding out much hope for his system either.

So, you agree that of the three, "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" is the true statement? That speaks well of you.

To answer how I got from that to "that initiating force is wrong, regardless of race, religion, creed, or costume" is explained in the section "Preferences":

I am able to explain to others. Perhaps your perception of my ability stems from the fact that my explanations are not tailored effectively for your world view (or, if I wanted to be insulting, such as your above statement, I could say your learning ability).

From here on, I will make a dedicated effort to educate you on the subjects below in which you either admit your deficiency in understanding, or it becomes clear that you lack a clear understanding of.

Which concept(s) below are you having difficulty understanding?

- Steady state economies (SSE)
- Nonrenewable resources
- The dangers of ignorance
- Free market exploitation
- Edge effects
- Checkerboard effect
- The destruction of information
- Trophic cascades
- Habitat loss
- Ecosystem fracturing
- Wilderness corridors
- Brownlash
- Umbrella species
- Natural capital
- Ecosystem productivity
- Deforestation
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- Milankovitch cycles

Tell you what... Why don't we start with this one: you've dropped these terms, but if you've explained them, I missed it.


To avoid cluttering this thread, you should create another about it.

I'm hesitant to do so, unless you're interested. Therefore, I'd prefer that you create it and I'll be happy to discuss it.

Have you read Healing Our World yet?

I'll start the thread on Edge effects (and related matters), and we'll discuss.

Well, what did you think, that I'm some type of ax-wielding barbarian pillager?  I'm not saying that "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" is a true statement, don't mangle my words - I'm saying that it is potentially true depending on the definition of "universally preferable".  If he defines what he means by that, then it could be true.  If it boils down to a judgment of "reasonable" then it is true, if it tries and define a ridged, procedural framework for morality then it is less true tending to false.

These statements state that we should not resort to force as a first means of "preference", but isn't that the most obvious thing in the world?  People that resort to force as a 'first preference' are typically criminals or insane people; so who is this statement of SM's supposed to apply to?  Those that already realize it's obviousness in both theory in application or those too busy committing crimes to even read anything to begin with?

Force is expensive and potentially destructive, and once force is initiated it is very hard to return to a place of reasoned discussion (if possible).  This is why people don't resort to it until all other options are exhausted, and this is typically inclusive of the State as well.  The penalty is roughly proportional to the crime in our existing system for this very reason.  You won't be thrown in prison for a speeding ticket but you'll be fined, you won't be thrown in prison for a DUI but you may lose your license, you may be thrown in prison or even executed for violent crimes that are heinous enough to warrant such reciprocity.  Notice the lack of unreasoning force in any of these applications?

I guess the problem with the NAP (whatever flavor) is those that are going to TRY and abide by it are not those that should necessarily abide by it.  The evil, oligarchical overlords that rule our system love the fact that you are hamstrung by this ideology that their fathers financed and created for this very purpose: to paralyze the moral and intelligent people into political inaction by warping, to their benefit, what the ideologue considers 'good'.  If what you consider 'good' is allowing the economic royalists to continue to rule-by-corruption of our system then count me out; if what you believe is 'good' is to not tax ill-gotten wealth that was largely stolen in the first place and return it to the commons, then count me out; if what you believe is 'good' is the maintenance of the existing system or the refusal to discuss policy in favor of utopian fantasies, deeming anything I suggest as "artificial" whilst the entire system by this same definition is "artificial" and nothing that is or should be beyond our capacity for reason to change, then count me out; if you consider it 'good' that the criminality of the biggest robber barons of our age is masked by the mystification of "The Market", then count me out; etc, etc.  The problem, of course, is that if you adhere to the NAP, as you intend it, then you are basically saying that you couldn't do anything about any of these problems, because they would be in violation of your moral principles.  So, in short, your morality prevents you from being moral.  This is of course the intention behind the creation of these cynically, politically concocted ideologies.


Another critical, and telling, problem with the NAP is that it holds the Status Quo to be some state of virtuous existence.  That restitution for previously committed crimes or situations which would naturally (and rightfully) raise the moral indignation of those with a moral compass is deemed inadmissible to the followers of Libertarianism and the NAP.  Fredric Bastiat even explicitly states this in his trash-pamphlet "The Law", that lawmakers shouldn't concern themselves with righting past injustices but should consider that people's standing in life may at present should be seen as their own moral failings.  Wouldn't the lawmaker consider both?  Why should the lawmaker tilt his perception in favor of 'blaming the people' over an objective look at reality in pursuit of what the truth is?  If you can't see that this type of rhetoric is simply oligarchical apologetics then, my friend, you are truly lost.  Oligarchs who want to freeze the movement and progress and change of the system because what power and wealth they have obtained they want to last for eternity.  Hence is the problem with all the Liberal Tradition garbage that floated across the ocean from the British Empire, it extirpates the oligarchy from the social construct.  They go from being fundamental in understanding sociology, history, economics, basically everything civic-related, to simply not existing in the obfuscation of the misconception of "Man", as such, pursuant to these doctrines.  They wrote themselves out of history.  To be a Liberal/Libertarian is to deny that a Ruling Class exists, exists for their own purposes, and has motives that are against and at the expense of the rest of the population - all you can see in this blinding, slave ideology is that Man exists and all are universally the same, and universally without difference in means, that there is no conception of the difference between Rights and Privileges, and the universal rejection of Class as a social reality.  If you don't understand Class - a true historical constant! - as fundamental to any analysis of the world, then you are truly lost and grasping in the dark.

No, I assumed you would champion "The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences." It is explained in the quote, that "universally preferable" means "objectively required" to get the result desired. Thus, it might be better to state, in the terms of the quote from the "Preferences" section: If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.


He addresses this in the book. Since you are reading it, I'll leave it to him to explain.


True, as far as it goes... but behind all of those actions is the threat of violence. If you speed, you haven't harmed anyone. Perhaps it can be argued that you have endangered some people, but you have not harmed anyone, and if you wish to prevent all danger, you must hide in a mile deep bunker... and even then, you must worry about earthquakes. So what about this increased risk warrants the reciprocity of stealing money from the speeder? And what if the speeder refuses to pay? What then? Again, he has done nothing to harm anyone, merely said "no" to some people who say that he owes them money for no reason.


I find it interesting that you defend taxation as a just policy. Those selfsame "Evil Oligarchs" can afford high-end tax attorneys and charitable donations to pay little or nothing. It's a large infographic, so I won't clutter this already extensive post with it, but please do check out this nifty little workup that H&R Block put together to compare Bruce Wayne with Peter Parker... https://chzheroes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/funny-celebrity-pictures-roflrazzi-superhero-economics-bruce-wayne-vs-peter-parker.jpg Stealing from people to redistribute wealth will not end with a fair distribution, and will be inefficient to boot. The market allows the money to flow, naturally, to those best able to utilize it. The only people who will be poor are those who are wasteful, poor at managing money, or lazy.


I don't know where you came to this conclusion. Restitution is a key component of Libertarian thought, and is especially important in Anarchist strategies.

As to the ruling class... What sets them aside from, or above, the rest of us? Are they granted some divine right? Do they have some genetic advantage? What makes them fundamentally different from everyone else?

Fine, I'll read the book then, but if the 'answers' to the questions I have are as vague as the one's you posted above, all I'm going to have is more questions.


Once again Libertarianism is an unworkable system following your logic.  I'm not arguing that your ideological purity could work in some fictional lucid dream state in your mind, that's fine, I'm talking about the actual physical world we co-inhabit.  The result of Libertarian ideology is: Moral Degeneracy -->  Chaos/Anarchy -->  Dictatorship/Totalitarianism/Civil-War; while the professed result of it is supposedly: Ideological Tenants -->  Never Before Seen, Anti-Historical, Ill-logical, Utopia.  The ideology is radically anti-civilization, that everyone gets to live by their own laws and their own rules regardless of the harm or risk of harm they are exposing to the rest of the population.  It raises the question: if you (or any Libertarians out there) would like to 'put their money where their mouth is' then why won't you move to Antarctica or some otherwise deeply remote region where you could 'live in peace' completely alone and alienated?  Although you would be surely taking supplies into that scenario that could have only been created by civilization, that being, of course, basically every modern technology and product available.

Why does the individual get to unilaterally decide what they wish to follow with regard to the safety, welfare and preservation of the rest of the group?  Isn't it up to the group how they are going to define their own safety, well-being and protection? 


So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?  That the policy that we need to pursue for our own salvation and survival is impossible because it 'could never happen'?  Well that is the kind of attitude that is going to lose us what remains of our Republic.  I hope your food stocks, water filtration systems and guns are able to last you long enough to live out your life in peace.  In the morality of Libertarianism it is 'good' to desire the ruination of civilization so you can plan to gloat over it's future corpse.  Sorry to inform you that we're actually all in this together and if we go down (as you are feverishly working toward in promotion of your ideology) then you come down with us.  We are all on the same boat, the S.S. Modern Civilization.  Of course the meme of holding your tongue and 'saving face' to not actually involving yourself in the active creation of anything worthwhile is widespread; the entire culture has largely devolved into a schadenfreudian blame game where everyone is content to sit back and predict the worsening of the system which will manifest by virtue of their inaction.  After civilization is destroyed I hope you don't get sick because you won't have access to modern medicine.  You should probably quit typing on this forum and go plant a crop for your very subsistence before the proverbial 'shit hits the fan'.
*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.  In this we see the myth of Total Ownership and the Utopian dream-world of Anarchism.  Without a better system (or even a logically coherent one) to propose, what do you have to offer as a framework to organize society?  Assuming you like living in society and wouldn't rather return to being a primitive animal as all your doctrines are in full alignment of being in support of.
*  The mythology of The Market:  Ignoring actual economics, ignoring game theory, ignoring everyday examples to the contrary.  What, pray tell, "Market" are you referring to?  You assume that you can rigorously define "Market" and that that system you define would be "natural", when in fact, it would be just as artificial as any other social construct.  Perhaps I should start defining all my arguments and everything that I'm in favor of as "the natural" state of being when in reality all these things hinge solely on human choice and human will to define the system as they intend.  How could someone be fooled by such hollow rhetoric?  We see Utopian thinking again in your reasoning of your fictional "Market" (that you I defy you to define) as being able to provide everyone what they are capable of achieving and the universal 'set-it-and-forget-it' future arbitrator of all Justice.


I can't believe that you don't see your own contradiction.  If force, as outlined by the NAP, is against the ideals of Libertarian Thought then what "restitution" could you possibly be referring to?  How would "restitution" not require force?  Is "restitution" not fundamental to a legal system which seeks to compensate those who were wronged by, indeed, use of force? Is there an initial requirement of force to enact the universal principles of Libertarianism (in order to 'reset the scoreboard', so to speak) where thereafter we will be ruled by Libertarian Thought as the logical, rational and moral conclusion?  In short, how do you reconcile the stark incompatibility of NAP and "restitution" as a "key component" nonetheless?

There is nothing legitimate that should set the ruling class above us.  That's why I seek further things that can ameliorate this discrepancy.  What do you propose?  To deride their power over us in insults or indifference to the reality of their power over us?  My solution is to remove that power they have by taking it away, indeed, by use of force, through the legal system.  Your solution appears to be: pretend it doesn't exist or downplay it's scope, or to provide Utopian solutions to the problem.  Only one of these solutions has ever effectively done anything positive throughout all of history and HOW to remove this undue, unjust, corrupting power SHOULD be the topic of the conversation.

Historically the ruling class oligarchy has claimed all the things you profess, divine right, genetic superiority was popular during the first half of the 20th century among the ruling elites; an infinite number of scams, frauds and deceptions have occurred to protect the ruling class.  As I've learned more and more about history, economics, civics, moral philosophy, and everything else I can take in to expand my awareness it is becoming clearer and clearer that the majority of things (meme's if you like) in our present culture (and not exclusively popular culture, although it is clearly more prevalent in popular culture) are there largely to support the ruling class.  The majority of what people think is false; and false by what could only be described as the intentional creation of lies by the only people who could benefit in the immediate from said creation of lies: the ruling class.  The examples are more numerous than I have time for here and have chosen to focus specifically upon Libertarianism for my book project. 

So I read that part on the NAP by Steven Molyneux.  It was as banal and horrible as I remember his vlogs being.  It didn't do anything to solve any of these problems I have posed regarding the NAP on this and other threads.

Thank you, but I would appreciate a response to the following statement:
If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is universally preferable not to ingest a handful of arsenic.


http://freestateproject.org/


A group does not "decide" anything. Individuals decide things. the closest a group comes to making a decision is taking a vote. That is, each individual makes a decision, and lets that decision be known to the rest of the group. Unless this vote is unanimous, any acting on that vote represents the majority of that group forcing their decision upon the minority. Why does the majority get to unilaterally decide anything for the minority?

The individual making a decision to speed, or not wear a seatbelt, or smoke a cigarette, is taking a risk. If that risk harms someone else, they are liable for recompense, also known as restitution.


Any system by which we attempted to tax them would be corrupted. If they've done it once, they'll do it again.


Is it anything else?


The market is the sum of all voluntary actions. No more, no less. In other words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=5.0


You seem to be confusing libertarianism with Jainism. Initiating force is a violation of the NAP. If a crime has been committed, then restitution, righting that wrong, is perfectly acceptable.


Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. Libertarianism is the radical notion that since the "ruling elite" are no different from any other person, that they be held to the same standards. The best way to remove the power that they claim to hold over the rest of us is to simply ignore it. I suggest you read the book I have posted, the New Libertarian Manifesto, which details this concept.

So we have a principle that is ignored by most humans and other living things and fundamentally contradicts the way evolution actually happens - a theory that has aggression at it's heart, and yet we are discussing it, like Buddhists in a monastery?
I've read this thread and to me it's very odd. No one lives their lives through philosophical concepts. They respond to the reality of their situation at that moment.
No one starts with philosophy. Even basic logic is ignored by most people - becasue being alive is irrational.
Human beings are a type of animal responding to the palpable reality of their existence at that moment.
How do we persuade all living things to follow NAP? (or does it only apply to humans becasue humans are special higher animals?).
Enjoy your hamburger and then think about the aggression that went into making it.

When cannibalism becomes acceptable or you have a long conversation with a cow, your argument might have merit. Until then, yes, humans are special, because we reason, and communicate.

So the principal is species specific and is dependent on the ability to have a meaningful conversation. They have to understand the rudiments of logic at least.
Aggression against living things that struggle with human conversation are excluded from the principal. Babies and the mentally ill are to be treated as a special case I presume.

Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? Something cannot adhere to the non-aggression principle if it cannot have it rationally explained to it.

Again, what do we mean by "universally preferable"?  That isn't as clear of a term as both Steven Molyneux and you are pretending it is.  Those two words combined have many potential meanings.  Am I to take those words at dictionary, face value?  In what context and in what sense?  Or are they defined in some other means in the writings of Steven Molyneux?  This is the problem with all this Libertarian ideology is that they create these ingenious little juxtapositions of words that either obfuscate their intentions or scuttle a true understanding of the topic discussed.  They use these rhetorical Trojan horses as means of indoctrinating the unobserved to their ideological adherents.  Hayek used "collectivism", Bastiat used "plunder", Hazlitt's was perhaps "the forgotten man", Ron Paul uses them all, and all of them are a way to evoke emotional responses and pretend to have a discussion - BUT to the careful reader you see that they never define their terms and that that is not at all surprising.  Sophistry and Ideology are ALWAYS a war and an assault against language, it is a form of intentionally being vague and intentionally trying to create confusions in the topic they are supposedly attempting to lay bare.  In an argument, or in a "school of thought", whenever you see the wording being abused and misused a 'red flag' should go up that you are trying to be played.

The problem with saying that any logical construct, such as the NAP, lay between the actions you are taking, choices you are making, or any otherwise moral decisions and the universal platonic axiom "of justice" is that it does nothing but get in the way.  Like I was mentioning earlier we could spend the rest of our lives defining justice through specific actions but never would be able to fully codify justice into a set of ridged and strict procedures.  This obvious truth should raise the question in everyone's mind: if we identify an action, law or choice that nobody has ever considered before and innately know if it is an action in accordance with justice, then where did that knowledge come from?  How is it that we have an innate knowing about such things?  Justice, like a conception of a circle, resides, in its most true form, in the realm of thought or noosphere.  Creating artificial, mechanistic, procedural filters might seem useful, but it fact it is not - it is counterproductive to understanding justice.  We could think of a myriad list of scenarios to which this version of the NAP applies that would harmonize with what we know justice to be, and in that sense, all these supposed Libertarian axioms are all true - except when they are not; and such is my criticism of them: something that has exceptions is not an axiomatic expression of morality and is not wisdom. Concurrently we could apply this version of the NAP to scenarios in which it is not preferable, and abiding by the NAP would, in fact, be a greater injustice than simply letting the scales fall from our eyes and acting in accordance with what we know is right.


Nothing new here, just the same old yapping.


Oh my, let us please not split hairs here.  I'm trying to use conversational language for a general audience.  If you read my earlier posts on the NAP regarding Society then you should know that I'm not saying that a aggregation of individuals 'makes decisions', as such, I'm speaking generally for the sake of what little brevity I can possibly muster by using general terms.  In a forum consisting generally of ostentatious Libertarians I should know better.   ;)

Majority rule is something that is rather innate to social aggregations; it isn't like someone invented it, if individuals of a group largely agree on anything then that is typically the way the social structure is governed simply by default.  There isn't any way to otherwise conduct the affairs of society that would be in concurrence with 100% consensus - it is totally impossible and ridiculous and you haven't presented: any logical coherent framework that can solve this 'problem', any historical example that could solve this 'problem', any legal framework that could solve this 'problem', nothing.  So until you figure out how to design your perfect utopia and how to get us there from where we are, then we are left with other solutions.  My solution, being from the traditional American System, is majority rule with the rights of individuals protected by law.  If we worked in this framework we would all individually have much more actual, tangible, pragmatic, real, concrete, legitimate, economic and social freedom and liberty; not the will-o-wisps promised by the Libertarian schools.  I think that all this fear of the group largely stems from a fear of knowing your interdependence with the rest of society, then noticing how degraded and debased they have become, and then pretending that you 'simply don't need them' and can chant these Liberal/Libertarian doctrines and soothe your conscious, believing that somehow their plight is not your own.  Well it is unfortunate, for all those that are content to 'hunker in their bunkers', that the opposite is the truth.





And we can fix it again, our survival literally depends upon it.  There is a perpetual class-struggle that is invisible and ignored by the victims of the Liberal Doctrine.  Even someone as sold out as Bill Clinton was able to raise the higher bracket tax rates, how can you explain that if we are to believe (that you seemingly do) that the rich are some type of Brahmin, untouchable class in our existing system?  They are not, but pretending that their 'victory' is inevitable does nothing but hasten their grip on our system and hastens the eventual collapse and destruction of the system that results whenever oligarchy has fully taken grasp of the power in any society.  Most stark and recent examples being Russia in the 1990s.


Here's my challenge.  Whenever you complain about anything or decry its injustice I want you to frame it in the better context of a new system (that is functional, logical coherent, preferably historic in nature) and argue for that over the existing system.  But not to simply complain about it in a vacuum as if it doesn't exist for any present reason. 

I'm not going to go repeating the questions and absurdities that arise in a system where we consider "tax = theft", it's too sophomoric and imbecilic.  However I will agree with you that over-taxation is unjust and is something approaching or within the spirit of theft.  But that's a broad discussion.  The reason that these "tax is theft" arguments have traction is that the middle class pays an overwhelming percentage of the taxes in this country if you look at: proportional taxation, and (I'd say more importantly) what the average middle-class worker gets for their level of (over) taxation.  I posted earlier my tax policy and, if my policies were enacted then you're tax burden would fall dramatically and it would go to those that presently pay little or nothing, while reducing the national debt dramatically.  But this all requires that we fight for it and know what is in our best interest.


Like I said in my Ron Paul book review: "Of course Ron Paul also cites the Myth of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market. The Free Market is just an allusion to actually having a policy discussion. You can simply wave your hand, point over the horizon, and say that the Free Market / Invisible Hand will solve our problems."

Besides the point that you simply ignored the things I posited against this allusion you apparently know nothing about Game Theory.  Which I find to be completely fundamental to any understanding any actual functions of the market (the real one, not the Zeus-God of Libertarianism).  Are you aware that your non-conception of "The Market", as such, is an undigested shibboleth, a black-hole of rhetorical discussion?  You can simply route all arguments to the following argumentative memory-holes:  "The Market", "Choice", the "NAP", "Self Ownership", etc.  All of these things actually have zero meaning or nebulous meaning that changes to suit the sophist that is weaving those arguments.  And notice how this little 'tool belt' of rhetorical blurbs supposedly arms the ideologue with a "solution" to every possible problem or question that could possible arise in a discussion of these topics?  You can literally read a single Libertarian book and become a full policy expert on any possible facet of: civic policy, social policy, economic policy, morality, etc.  It is the handbook for those blinded by their own pride of the want of knowledge and blinded by their own lack of humility; believing that the world could be so simple.

Here's a great lecture on game theory:  http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1426 (you can probably find it elsewhere for free, library, etc).
This one is quite "businessy" but worthwhile:  http://www.amazon.com/Game-Theory-Business-Primer-Strategic/dp/0964793873/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342209349&sr=1-9&keywords=game+theory

A great theoretical primer:  http://www.amazon.com/Game-Theory-Analysis-Roger-Myerson/dp/0674341163/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342209349&sr=1-10&keywords=game+theory



Oh no, out come the shoe-boxes with all the labels on them!  Again the pedantry of the Libertarians is always stunning.  This last sentence contradicts so much of what you've said on this forum before that I am at a loss of words what to say.  Shaking off my dazed expression, I ask: define "crime", define the statute of limitations of that crime, who is the initiator of force in this context?



Should I pull my "blankey" over my head while I "ignore it" or do you recommend hiding under my bed?  Ignoring what we're going through it like saying you can simply "ignore" forced buggery.  Again, we see the cowardice of the modern man fully expressed, I call it "the retreat into the subjective self" where the individual simply 'writes off' the real world because they have believed the rigorous and ubiquitous social conditioning that they've been exposed to, to perfect their own learned helplessness.  We see it with the far Left and their "you create your own reality" garbage and we see it with the Rugged Individualism of the Right with their blindness of the awareness of our social codependency.  Both of these are a jettisoning of our social duties and both of them breed weakness, cowardice, isolation and eventual misery in the people professing them.  Not to mention that they are the ideology of defeat, of apathy, or weakness and of ruination among the populace; all of which greatly serve the historical needs of oligarchy.

Oh, for fuck's sake, We've already defined it.


You're treading dangerously close to pedantry for pedantry's sake.

Is this better?: "If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic."

translation: Shit! I asked when you guys were going to "do it", and you actually are right now!!! Abort! Abort!


Care to explain how individual rights are protected when 50.00001% of the population can force their decisions upon the other 49.99999%, including changing this "law"?


Or..... We can use a different system, instead of trying the same system again, hoping to "get it right this time."


'k. Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...


Would you prefer if I said that free people, making decisions, in aggregate, will discover the right solution, and, once that solution is discovered, tend to choose that solution again and again?

I'd also like to point out that this theory is supported by game theory, and historical evidence.


"crime" is initiation of force, or otherwise violating the NAP (fraud, threat of force, etc). Statue of limitations? Why, simply by getting away with it for some period of time, should they be allowed to get away with it forever? And, of course, the initiator of force is by definition the criminal.


Cute. No, I suggest you live your life as much as possible without bowing to that power. Again, the NLM that I posted over in the Book Club details this strategy.

Thanks for that definition.  It's as I thought, he doesn't mean what he says.  "Universally preferable", to him, means "required" although it contains the trappings of the words to make it more palpable.  Why not say "morally required behavior"?  Of course, because that would seem authoritarian.  So he says "Universally Preferable*", in where you read the * below and he says "Preferable = Required".  We are talking simple definition of words and he's exposed (as you illustrate) as abusing the definition of the words and muddying the language - and yet! - I'm seen as pedantic.  How perfectly backward.  Yes, the audacity of me, wanting clear and honest language in a discussion.  



I guess that's the benefit of not having an concrete ideals or principles behind your 'belief-system', you get to claim whatever you like is inclusive of your belief system or not depending on the time of day, your mood or indigestion or whatever.  Apparently, this is your anarchist Utopia, although the FSP promotes: "... the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."  Meaning that there is a government.  Meaning that it is opposed to what you've said prior.  Hey, if you can't be consistent then how can you expect anyone to discuss anything with you?


http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

The ultimate joke is that this system has been humming along fairly well for hundreds of years and you, as new to the scene as a new-born puppy, are enraged and claiming, in effect: "how could this system possibly work?!"  Ignoring that it is working every day for you - and fairly well, all things considered.  Perhaps you should take a community college class on Constitutional Law.


"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  --Thomas Jefferson

I'm still waiting for you to propose your system.  Still waiting.


To simply cut to the chase and avoid what I've asked to your deaf ears repeatedly I'll simply personalize the situation to your specific existence.

Q:  Were you ever a baby/child/adolescent?  A simple yes or no will suffice.


Crime is the definition of the initiation of force, and, initiation of force is criminal.  Well thanks for exposing your circular logic and/or Aristotelian underpinnings to your mind's frameworks.




Great, I'll put it on my stack; hopefully it will have some answers that are, so far, never forthcoming from your responses.  Libertarianism is like some type of secret society or religion where you are always promised some greater level of understanding just around the corner and yet when you get 'there', there is another sign saying that the higher truth is 'just around the corner'.  It's a never ending spiral of rhetoric and nonsense - that is, so far.  But hey, I'm an open-minded person, my ideas change all the time as they become increasingly less false, I'll give it a read.  

It is unfortunate that you didn't answer any of the most leveling questions that I laid against your previous response.  You seemingly want to chase the more trifling and peripheral things around these arguments.

Still waiting for a response to the phrase itself, rather than the wording. I'm not holding my breath, though, so feel free to continue to evade.
Let's read that phrase again, shall we? Let's pay special attention to the wording: "... the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

Hmm.... "maximum". That specifies an upper limit. Is there any word in there that specifies a lower limit? hmm.... I don't see one, but maybe you do? With no lower limit, "No role" is still within the bounds of that statement. There are numerous anarchists in the FSP.
I wouldn't say that a system that almost immediately had to put down a violent rebellion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion) as "humming along fairly well", especially considering the current state of that "piece of paper (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE)"
See my proposed system below.
Nope, I sprung, full-formed, from my mother's womb. Didn't you?

Since you don't refute, or even address this point, I will assume you agree with it.


If robbery is defined as a crime, is it circular reasoning to define a robber as a criminal?


Good, that's all I can really ask.

I evade nothing.  Do you really think that I'm scared or in avoidance of trying to answer these questions?  It is just that I don't have to engage in word games as part of my ideological conditioning.  I want clear language because this is where they shell-games occur in Libertarianism, they misuse and abuse words until they are meaningless and allow their dupes to follow them, completely in a stupor.

Now regarding the quote specifically.  Is the intent of saying "ingesting a handful of arsenic" saying that that is tantamount to suicide?  I assume so.  Who is required to follow this doctrine?  Every single person?  If that is the case then you don't have society much less a peaceful one; you would have some type of warlord, ruling council or tribal leader who's power would be near absolute or completely absolute - OR, of course, you'd have the Utopia of your mind's eye that is impossible, if not actually undefinable.  If saying that not following the non-initiation of force is "objectively required" for "continued life" then that is obviously totally false.  So, in short, this quote, as a moral axiom or tenant of any ideological framework is actually more worthless than many others I've heard before.


Most certainly a government could be defined into oblivion if the rules and codes of Libertarianism were sufficient, but they have yet to be proven as such, and every attempt to prove them as such has had no headway with someone who isn't an ignoramus or already victim of the ideology.  So, again, if property laws and everything that the FSP project intended to enforce, didn't require enforcement (this "lower limit") then it wouldn't exist - yet, it does exist because the reasons for it's existing are present.  Why this even needs to be said is really blowing my mind.

If there are many anarchists in the FSP then great, I can't keep track of all the various confused sub-ideologies that are occurring within the befuddled and confused milieu of the Libertarian swamp.



LOL, how much you know about the Whiskey Rebellion?  Really, how much?  I've heard of that Libertarian historical fictional yarn woven out there about the Whiskey Rebellion, the Libertarian scribbler was writing as if that that Rebellion was somehow the pinnacle of mankind and as if the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War was fought by a bunch of scoundrels.  Of course, a Libertarian Utopia, otherwise known as 'mob rule' followed.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper in a certain since, it surely is written on a piece of parchment somewhere.  But so is everything written, does that make it any more or less true?  If we had an involved and less moral degenerate citizenry then we could have "the rule of Law".  Imagine that, because that is something much more close to a utopia than anything that you are preaching.


I looked, I didn't see it.  Where is your 'system'?



Thanks.  Been waiting for that.  In order for these Liberal/Libertarian doctrines to apply to anyone they surely must have been born as fully adult, fully autonomous individuals.  Without this alone the entire super-structure of Liberalism/Libertarianism crumbles to the ground.



Of course this hinges on your definition of "free people".  As I see you didn't define that loaded term, but, of course you didn't - because you can't.  Because the Liberal/Libertarian definition of "freedom" and "free people" is incompatible with reality.

Really, you should read those books I cited then you could quit saying things that are so embarrassing.


Of course not.  But you are forgetting that you are talking to someone who isn't a Libertarian and therefore doesn't take your assumed definitions at face value.  You have yet to ever prove that "Crime is the initiation of force" (in which there is an implicit fallacy, see if you can find it).  Until then you can't go about simply defining terms as you like and expecting someone who doesn't yet agree to your definitions without sufficient reasoning.  As a definition between like-minded Libertarians then this simply would be definitional (as you say) but as an argument to convince someone of your definitions of terms it clearly is circular.  Seeing as I'm someone who doesn't accept the NAP as being of any worth as an axiom or moral indicator, and seeing that you obviously know that (pursuant to this conversation), then I was taking this as an explanation of your definition - hence, your implied circular logic.

Let's take this phrase apart, so that we can look at each piece individually, shall we?

"If you wish to have a peaceful society," This sets a goal. The goal being "a peaceful society"

"it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force," This states that to meet that goal, you should refrain from doing the specified action, in this case, "initiate the use of force"

"much in the same way that" This sets up a comparison between the two phrases.

"if you wish to continue life," Again, we're setting a goal. This time, it is continued life.

"it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic." And here, again, we state an action that is detrimental to that goal, and advise that if you wish to meet that goal, you should refrain from doing that action.

Put another way, Ingesting arsenic:continued life::Initiating force:peaceful society
So, your argument amounts to, "Government exists, therefore is must always exist."?
I know plenty about the whiskey rebellion. I know, for instance, that the US had no sooner cast off the chains of taxation, than they tried to settle them firmly on the backs of their populace.
That's essentially what I've been saying. That the real utopian ideologues are the ones that think government is anything but a protection racket.
You sure? You've been responding to it. It's immediately below this sentence.
So, the argument here is that because we have parents, and because we grow up, government is necessary? I don't see how that's relevant. Maybe I'm missing something. Could you spell it out in no uncertain terms?
"Free people" People free from coercion. You must have a different definition of "can't" than I do.

Well, you see, if you set forth that the initiation of force is always wrong, then that makes anyone who initiates force always a wrong-doer.

If you think that initiating force is sometimes right, I'd like to hear your criteria.

This is getting too ridiculous.  If you want my take on the NAP then here it is:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234



You must be trolling.  Government exists because it is socially necessary.  Until it is no longer social necessary then it will and should exist.


You know plenty about the whiskey rebellion?  I'm doubtful.  Your positions here look like that of an anti-Federalist Confederate.  If you'd like to throw a little more meat on that argument then we might actually go someplace with this, but until then, balls in your court.


The Libertarian ideology has another false ideal in it which is this: that the government has had any historically universal character.  That is another fundamental falsehood in the Liberal/Libertarian doctrine that I'm going to write a whole segment on in my book - that trying to apply a bunch of characteristics to 'government' that are universal is always a lost cause because it has no universal character.  It never has and likely never will.  The general concepts of oligarchy, democracy, autocracy and other actual players on the world stage actually have universal historical characteristics, but the Liberal/Libertarian never wants to discuss actual historical constants - for doing so would give people a real understanding of the world and the ability to see into our immediate future.


Oh, I thought it was something that wasn't trying to have the conversation go in circles.  Each time 'round simply changing the wording and rhetoric, while the core of the argument stays the same and universal principles are left out in the cold.  Excuse me, but it seems we already had this conversation, and my most cutting questions and views were never answered.  Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234


There is no reason to pretend like I haven't already answered this to the chirping crickets on this other thread.  I probably wrote about 20+ pages on this topic in this thread that you were very much a part of.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234


I love how Libertarians think that every solution is so simple.  Please rigorously define that term: "people free from coercion"...?  Is that the end-all-be-all of your definition?  If so, then there really is nothing worth discussing any further because you are a completely lost cause and won't ever be able to find your way out of this labyrinth that you've created for yourself.  If so, I'm sorry that that is the case, but there it is, nonetheless.



Again, you attempt to put our discussion back at the beginning, because you have to; for when we follow the argumentation and ideals of Libertarianism to their logical conclusion, we see nothing but: contradiction, absurdity, confusion, moral depravity, and nonsense.

The loop goes something like this:  Libertarian "Moral" "Axiom" -->  Discussion  -->  Universally proven as worthless/toxic (in all facets) -->  Reword original "Moral" "Axiom" with new rhetoric or hypotheticals -->  Attempt another debunking

Sorry, I'm not going to run in circles.  You can obviously spew much more rhetoric than I can attempt to debunk; that is, if I was falling for the trick in thinking that each type around a little smudge or turn of phrase actually equated to anything new being brought into the discussion.  If you'd like to try and answer some of my refutations that nobody dared to touch (because they were so evident and irrefutable, I presume), in the earlier thread, then we would actually be progressing and not playing this circuital game.

More evasion. Can't say I'm surprised. Let me know when you feel like addressing the actual statement above.

In other words, Yes. that is your entire argument.

My positions are that of an Anarchist, who sees that immediately after they fought a war to get rid of a tax, they imposed one on their people. If that does not expose government as thieves, I don't know what does.

Of course government has a historically universal character. All governments throughout time have had one thing in common: Taxation. Taxation is just violent extortion under another name. Thus, all governments, ever, share one common feature: criminality.

Evade, evade, evade. You were trying to make a point, here. Please do, or admit that you are wrong. I will consider silence to be such an admission.

Oh, my, but we're in full pedant mode today. Very well.
People: Homo Sapiens. in other words, human beings. No extra-terrestrial life, much less sentient life, has been discovered. Should sentience be discovered in another being than that of the species homo sapiens, the definition of people will, perforce, expand.

free from: without influence by

coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

Now, feel like evading some more? I do so love to watch you dance.

More evasion. Since you clearly feel that initiating force is sometimes right, I want to hear your criteria. When is attacking moral?

myrkul,

I think what niemivh is saying is that you need to start presenting your ideology as something that is built up with facts, statistics, knowledge, historical precedent, real world examples, and in general, an actual demonstration of your ideas in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History

Oh, and if you want to read about Pennsylvania's anarchy (which is mentioned in that wikipedia article, but not detailed), you can see it here: https://www.mises.org/daily/1865

I'd really like to get niemivh's opinion on if this statement is true or false. Obviously there are going to be questions as to whether or not "continued life" or "peaceful society" are always morally preferable, but this seems like a pretty basic statement.

For example, a particularly resilient organism could ingest a small amount of arsenic and continue to survive supposing it had been building an immunity to it. In fact, in Upper Styria, Austria, in the 1800s, there were a group of peasants that were doing this as they saw it as a tonic to cure ills and help control body weight. In the same token, a "peaceful society" might similarly be conditioned to withstand a reasonable use of force, thus perhaps justifying such use within the context of whatever they saw fit.

However, in both instances, the reasons for justification were/are clearly "bunk". The onus is on the person arguing that force is beneficial to provide very clear reasoning for why, and, assuming a blank state where no arsenic has ever been consumed and no force has ever been initiated, which cannot be guaranteed, but must be assumed for a rational philosophical discussion, it is pretty clear to me that arsenic:continued life::initiating force:peaceful society.

EDIT:Is a peaceful society a "good" society is another question, but it seems clear to me that such a claim is a TRUE statement.

The reason I won't 'answer' this is because it's too stupid.  It's a horrible analogy.  Whomever thinks it's a good analogy has the literary sense of a Harry Potter or Twilight novel.

Myrkul has to have the shortest answers of all time because he can't actually 'dance' with me long or else he'd put his foot in his mouth.  I've had all I have to say regarding this on that other thread I cited multiple times, I cut through all the Libertarian nonsense there and posed questions and insights so uncomfortable for the Libertarians that none of them took up the challenge of trying to answer them.

If it's really so stupid an analogy, you should be able to tear it apart fairly easily. Perhaps the real reason you won't address it is because you can't. You have no response to it. You also can't refute:


Nor:

Nor can you refute:

Nor do you have a good answer for:

The reason my replies are short is that I do not require pages of prose to hide the fact that I have no point. I place my point right out there for all to see, and refute, if they can.

I would also like to point out that I did address your "points" in the very next post in that thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995254#msg995254

Now, would you like to address mine, in this one?

Maybe later.  I've grown weary of this conversation with you.  Perhaps some time when I'm bored I'll return and answer your supposedly impossible questions - which are, in fact, nothing of the kind.

Also, you never answered the main questions and postulates I raised in that other forum.  You simply danced in the periphery of the conversation like the Sophist you are.  You'd much rather dance at the edge of the conversation, because, once again, the translucent skin of Libertarian Ivory Tower theoreticians burns so easily if exposed to light.

Since you already admitted that "you like to watch me dance" it belies that you actually intend on putting any of your beliefs on the table and therefore are beyond reaching.  Congratulations.  You've solved what every 2 year old child has learned: that if you don't allow your beliefs to be flexible and conforming to reality then you can simply believe whatever you like.  And it might make you happy but that doesn't make it real.  Enjoy your tea parties with your stuffed animals.

 ;)

If there are some more people out there who would like for me to respond, then that would increase the likelihood that I will.  But if it is simply for trying to convince someone who is already a lost cause, then, like I said earlier, then maybe later if I'm bored.  I'd rather work on my book.

Then prove it, if you can!

Oh, But I did!



Don't blame me if your arguments are so weak I can destroy them in a few sentences. I do love to watch you dance. So, disappoint me, if you can, and stand your ground. Or, you know, keep dancing, while I get more popcorn.


Did you forget this?


Someone else would like your opinion on it. I doubt you'll give it, since you don't have anything that can refute it, but you did say more voices would help, so... There you are.

Face it, chief. I've got you backed into a corner, and just like Hawker, you can't defend your position. So you run. Which is not the behavior of an intellectually honest scholar.

lol. he's "tired".

I think he's too afraid to admit that initiating force wouldn't happen in a peaceful society, but unwilling to accept that, because then the onus would be on him to explain why a peaceful society isn't a "good" society.

I'm not going to claim that initiating force would never happen. What I do claim is that it would universally be recognized as criminal behavior, regardless of who did it.

No, not tired as much as "bored".  I'm bored arguing with half-wit ignoramuses who think they are intellectuals because they've read half a dozen books (if even that!) on their darling Libertarian ideology.

I'm going to go compile some blog posts.  Maybe I'll return sometime this week.

Keeps your eyes peeled.

 ;)

You make me laugh.  Yes you've crushed me under your towering intellect.  It was the genius stroke of a metaphor about eating arsenic being equivalent to some moral decision or something or the other.  I've been bested.

LOL

 :D

OK, good. Thanks for admitting it. If you feel like giving it another go, though, feel free.

Looks like your sarcasm detector breaks when you think that you are "winning" something intellectually.

Like I said on my Ron Paul book review:

"The enemy is not who you deem to be your political opposition; that mindset has been tried and proven a failure. The enemy is your own ignorance; that is something that you can only win in combating. Every step you take in battling your own ignorance is a small victory. And seeking for others to also take their fight inward rather than externalizing their lack of understanding in more and more heated, vitriolically frothing rhetoric, the more we all move forward."

Follow this and we'll all be much better off.

Well spoken. As I've said, the mind of the libertarian is wired such that the ideology and the philosophy of thought experiments within their own visualized world trumps reality. And by reality, I mean all the dynamics of the real world, and the understanding of it, and not just social dynamics, but physical dynamics, and how it all interrelates.

No, my sarcasm detector is working just fine. So is my bullshit detector, and it's screaming fit to wake the dead.

You cannot refute this:

You also can't refute:

Nor:

Nor can you refute:

Nor do you have a good answer for:

So you cut and run. All of these are simple statements or questions, and you cannot answer them without admitting that you are wrong. So you avoid them, like you have been all along.

Just about any human being can refute that with a little thought. If taxation is violent extortion and criminal, then so is the act of billing for services rendered by any individual, entity, or company. Pay up, or pay the consequences.

Ah, you say: "No, in such cases, I voluntarily contracted such services." Did you now? Upon further introspection into the nature of contracting said service, we find a world full of corruption, over charging, media influences, unknown contractual obligations, limited choices due to circumstance, societal peer pressure, brainwashing, and a whole host of other reasons.

Ah, but you still give a last gasp: "Taxes don't give me a choice." Really? Move to another country. You claim that there are no better options, as they tax you as well. You mean just like when you choose another service provider, they also have the nerve to bill you as well?

Ah, but you try one more time. You say: "I can live with fewer services than the government provides." To which I point out that your argument has now gone circular, as I already addressed that in the second paragraph of this post.

A little thought, indeed. so little, in fact, I'm amazed you can remember to breathe.

Let's compare. To illustrate the point, We'll use television.

"voluntarily contracted to the service" Did you now?
Private:
I have a few different services I can choose from, or I can select to not subscribe to any television at all. I don't even need to own one.

If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is one service to choose from, and even if I don't want a TV, one is provided for me, and there is no off switch. If I do not pay the bill, I am dragged off to be put into a cage, or possibly executed (probably on TV, so the other slaves can see).

"I don't have a choice" Really? Move to another country.
Private:
I have a few different services I can choose from, or I can select to not subscribe to any television at all. I don't even need to own one.

If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is only one service, and possibly only one channel. If I don't like it, I can move to another country, where they also only have one service, but the channel is different.

Your third point, addressing "I can live with fewer services than the government provides." is indeed circular, because I can use the same points to illustrate it:
Private:
I have a few different services I can choose from, or I can select to not subscribe to any television at all. I don't even need to own one.

If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is one service to choose from, and even if I don't want a TV, one is provided for me, and there is no off switch. If I do not pay the bill, I am dragged off to be put into a cage, or possibly executed (probably on TV, so the other slaves can see).

Yep.  I'm scard'.  This time, I'm enjoying watching you dance.

 ;)

Even USSR Soviet Russia wasn't this bad: executing people publicly for not paying taxes. 

In what world do you live?

I think you might have some type of undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia.

  :(

Television was a terrible analogy anyway for a number of reasons.

1. The market has bundled services (paying extra for stuff you don't want).
2. Massive media (brainwashing, manipulation, etc.)
3. It's a small subset of the free market.
4. It doesn't address the option afforded a citizen to move to another country.

I notice you ignore the fact that I said "If I do not pay the bill, I am dragged off to be put into a cage" and then only after, said "or possibly executed". Way to try and shift the discussion. Not going to work.

But I still get to choose which bundle gives me more of the services I want, and fewer of the services I do not want, and there is nothing forcing me to bundle. It's an option. Something you don't get with Government services. Those are all bundled, and there is no option to not bundle them.

And I'm the paranoid schizophrenic.  ::) Remember, you can turn off the TV, if you don't like what the voices are telling you to do, FA.

Would you like me to discuss the entire free market as a whole? 'cuz I can, and doing so makes your arguments even weaker.

"If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is only one service, and possibly only one channel. If I don't like it, I can move to another country, where they also only have one service, but the channel is different."