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.

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.

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.

If you are against NAP you are basically saying: there is a social problem, it must be solved by threatening people with violence. The point is that solving problems with violence is the worst way to do it.

Some people might not put seatbelts on for their kids. Do you:
A. kill them for not doing it. (this is ultimately the threat being made).
B. Solve the problem without using violence.

In a free market, social values are reflected in prices. Resources are allocated according to peoples preferences. If lots of people want kids to wear seatbelts and they think that it's worth the cost to achieve this, then it will happen through economic incentive. If they don't or if it's too expensive, then they don't value it enough to justify any action. Violence is for the intellectually lazy and the bullies.

As soon as you introduce force into the equation, values are no longer reflected in prices. No accurately, anyway; there is the bias of force influencing behavior toward a sub-optimal resource allocation. Instead of the market meeting the values of society, it is now forced to abide by the decree of some arbitrary opinion sanctioned by some politicians. Hence the phrase "an opinion with a gun".

If you see a kid without a seatbelt are you personally willing to point a gun in the fathers face and say "put seatbelts on your children or else I will kill you"? Do you think this solves the problem? This is the NAP-violating, state solution. The only difference is you have some institution doing this on your behalf.

So why is it "backwards"? The market already solves the problem. You haven't actually made a counter argument, just restated your case. People will have labels if they are willing to pay the premium for labels. If they aren't willing to pay the cost, then what's the point in forcing them to pay for something that they don't want?

Why are you "free not to read it"? If you don't have the facts that you need to know on the packaging, you never get the chance to make that choice. The only solution is to use the states monopoly of violence to force people to read the labels, right? People are also free to not buy a product without a label on it. On one side you advocate personal responsibility and on the other hand you advocate coercion by the state.

If people want their food products certified in a certain way and are willing to pay what it costs then the market will provide this service. These laws are both redundant and an infringement on property rights. This is Ron Paul's perspective and I totally agree with his vote.

You forget that defense agencies, while not elected, are voluntarily paid for. People vote with their wallets in a free market. If a defense agency starts attacking other defense agencies, they will lose members and go broke. People will instead fund their competitors and everyone will stop doing business with them (suppliers, contractors, investors etc). How can they win when the entire mechanics of the market works against them?

Your conflating defense agencies with governments, who have the ability to fund themselves with force, hence are not accountable to the market. A defense agency is NOT a government, it's a profit seeking business. Big difference. War is very expensive and destructive for business.

what is "fair"? If you don't like the price. Don't buy.

Besides, don't you see the symmetry of the situation. Any argument you apply to the sale of goods can be applied to your labor. How many raises will you demand before it's "unfair"? Supply and demand meet at the fair price (as long as there is no monopoly or special privileges, enforced with violence).


Fraud is illegitimate. It's an orthogonal argument.


That's the beauty of capitalism. The money ends up in the hands of the people who are best at efficiently allocating resources.


What good is defrauding you customers with the end of making them better able to identify a fraudster? Let them get defrauded if they will and the end will be the same, except your guaranteeing fraud rather than leaving it to chance. This doesn't help the economy.

Imagine there is a flood and the roads are blocked. The corner store can't get new deliveries of milk so they raise the price. This is profiteering. Now less people will buy milk because some will decide that it's not worth the extra cost. Those that really need milk can still get it.

Now, if the store is prevented through force to keep his prices stable. All the milk will be bought by regular customers and quickly run out. Now the people who especially need the milk will be unable to get it. Resources have not been efficiently allocated. This is a called a shortage and it is a result of the price fixing.

I disagree that there will always be governments. The government NEEDS the consent of the people to function. That's why we are so heavily propogandised in government run education centers and government backed media about the importance and virtue of the state. Once people understand that the government is an immoral institution and isn't actually necessary, it will inevitably end. It's a battle of ideas and the internet is turning the tide.

If you're worried about the poor being attacked, pay your defense agency to defend them as well as yourself.

If people want the poor to be taken care of, a market will emerge to provide this service. This form of charity will be much more common when the government stops stealing > %50 of our wealth.

Furthermore, the poor only exist because of the government. After the end of the 2nd world war, poverty was declining at %1 per year (in the USA), until the government created the welfare programs. After that it began to rise again. socialised charity creates a culture of dependency. Simple dolling out cash to poor people doesn't help them.

Consider the massive burden the government places on the economy; diverting typically half a nations resources to beurocracy and other unproductive uses. This inefficiency results in less production, meaning less wealth to go around and therefore higher prices. The poor suffer the most. Voluntary trade results in the most efficient allocation of capital, thus the most production/wealth. When the state introduces force in to the equation, everyone loses.

Libertarians believe social organisation should be based on a moral philosophy, rather than some arbitrary rules made by a privileged class. Basically, people just want to be free to live their lives. To have an environment where this is possible, everyone must respect each others person and property. In other words: free to do as you will as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom.

Hence the 2 tenants of Libertarianism:
1. The non-aggression principal.
2. The principal of self ownership.

These are not "laws", but moral axioms, according to which people should adhere in order to achieve a free society. Basically, don't hit, don't steal.

It is the Libertarian view that all social ills are a consequence of the violation of these principals. In particular, the failure of society to apply this morality (which most people adhere to in their day-to-day personal lives) to the government, which hash been given a free pass to violate these principals (taxes, laws, etc). Nothing virtuous comes from the initiation of force or theft. Once people learn that the government is nothing but, institutionalised aggression and theft, hence immoral, we can progress to a truly free society.

Of course, Hawker and FirstAscent will tell you that a free society is impossible, because they believe that people need to be controlled with force for society to function; thus NAP is immoral.

Sure. The government is the power broker; selling their power to initiate force. It absolutely must be eliminated. The Banks are just one of their best customers.

OWS just wants the force to be applied differently, hence direct their anger at the banks.

If bitcoin is what it's cracked up to be ( and it probably is ) then soon we won't be using fiat at all. Goods and services for fiat will move to bitcoin one by one. Every time a new business accepts bitcoins, bitcoins become more attractive, more business are encouraged to accept bitcoins.

Once this happens, all transactions will be bitcon transactions with 1/2 cent fees. Services converting between fiat will be redundant.

The only thing you said which came close to a counter argument was "Ranchers own land". With the beef example, you're assuming the wolves have value worth saving. Also, the wolves are unowned, hence the problem of unowned capital (assuming anyone want's to own them). Likely, they are a liability, hence there is value in destroying them. They have been priced appropriately.

If you are so well versed in Garrett Hardin, perhaps you can condense his central argument into a short paragraph and present it here. After a glance at this http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html He seems to be highly critical of The Commons as the cause of social problems. Which is exactly what I'm telling you; all these social problems result from the concept of common property. The government is one big fat problem of the commons, preventing the price mechanism from allocating scarce resources properly, resulting in environmental pillaging.

I'm glad you don't advocate price fixing, but what then do you advocate? If the price of a commodity isn't set by voluntary trade, then by what mechanism would it be accurately priced? If you believe that the market pricing is "inaccurate" then you must be comparing it to something that you believe is accurate. Else how could you make this determination?

He didn't attack your character. He specifically attacked a fallacious element of your argument: "You are confusing your own lack of imagination for a immutable law of nature.". You reasoning boils down to this: I can't think of how a market will solve these problems, therefore they can't be solved. This is false logic.

google: "conflict resolution in a free society". There's plenty of info on this.

"rights" is such a loaded word. If you define rights as: privileges bestowed on the people by the government, then sure, you have no rights without the government.

Of course, you can still have a mutual respect for property, which can be enforced by market entities. Hence, the market can operate without a government framework of "rights".

We've discussed this before. You have yet to demonstrate why the market cannot provide the services that the government currently claims a exclusive domain over. Your position seems to be that people can't possibly protect their property without a monopoly institution forcefully extracting wealth to pay for such a service. Clearly, there is a market demand for protection of property. Entrepreneurs will supply this demand, just like they do in every other market (that isn't regulated out of existence).

It is you presenting the false dichotomy of government vs chaos.

For palm oil, blue whale and beef, this is the problem of the commons: There is unowned or collectively owned property (an artifact of government), which prevents the market from pricing the destroyed resources. The problems is government, not the market.

For coal, agriculture, solar, I don't see your point. the market sets the price... actually, the price in all these cases is largely distorted by government laws, resulting in massive miss-allocations and inefficiencies.

Besides, what are you suggesting; that a collection of bureaucrats can know and set the "true price" of... anything? That the price should artificiality be set using threat of violence? What is the "accurate" price, if not determined by the subjective valuations of individuals voluntary transactions?

You sound like some socialist eco-hippy.

How does it not? Supply meets demand and a price is set. What other price is there for natural capital that would be more "accurate"? Why is natural capital different from capital in general, in this regard?


This has everything to do with government policies. Artificial interest rates, government spending, etc. To blame freedom for this is... naive.

These enormously complex problems can only be solved by the market through the price mechanism. Price is determined be the subjective valuations of the individuals that make up the marketplace. So, in a free market, people get exactly what they think has the most value.

Carbon already has a cost. clean air already has a value. It's the government regulatory framework that prevents a price being set for carbon (limited liability of corporations. government licensing/sanctioning of polluting industries, etc). This is typical of the government: 1. make laws which hamstring the market causing resource miss-allocations and negative side effects. 2. make another law to fix the problems created by the first law.

I'm just referencing an already documented theory.

technological growth can be measured in a few ways, for example: computational capacity per $. The interesting thing is, whichever metric you use, the growth is exponential.