Whenever someone threatens your person or property. Who decides when your person or property is "threatened"? The owner of the property. It seems as though it would be very subjective.
It is. One person may feel more threatened by an action than another. And what decides the limit of your retaliation.
You decide, with the understanding that others will judge you by how you respond. If you shoot someone for stepping on your lawn, without even a warning, that will obviously be considered as excessive use of force (you consider it as such, right?), and others may retaliate against you, either by seeking compensation, or ostracizing you. If someone stabs me, can I follow the NAP and shoot them? Or is that initiating greater aggression?
If they are stabbing you, and you are defending yourself, sure. If they stabbed you and left you, and you are just seeking retribution later, that's a different issue. If I shoot at the person, do they now have the right to kill me? Is their earlier violence justified because I encouraged greater violence?
That's between you, your shooter, and your community. If you initiated force by shooting that person, whether to rob him, or for no reason, then you basically gave up the right not to be shot, unless you figure out how to repair your standing in the community. So if it's all about who initiated the aggression, what is "initiation" defined as?
That's the difficult part that can at times be blatantly obvious, and at times might require judges or arbitration to settle. If someone insults me, is that an "initiation"?
Sure. Feel free to insult them back. If someone threatens to kill me, but doesn't actually go through with it, can I kill them in "self defense"?
If it is a legitimate threat on your life, as in they make it known that it's not just a verbal threat without intent to follow through, then maybe? All depends on how you expect your actions to be viewed in the community you wish to remain a part of. The end result you are hoping for is to continue to have others respect your right to your own life and property. It's up to you in how you maintain that respect. Well that question about whether or not it's justified is what bugs me. It seems as though there's really no set definition for the NAP. It basically says don't attack people, but it's fine to kill as many people as you want as long as they threatened you in some way.
NAP is you living among a group of other people who agree to the NAP. If your neighbor started killing everyone who threatened him in some way, how would you react? Would you consider that your neighbor is justified in what he is doing? Or would you consider him to be using excessive force, and refuse to have any dealings with him? Hopefully the neighbor will take that into consideration, too. You could even split it to where the person he killed initiated minor force by tresspassing, while the neighbor essentially ignored the tresspass by not acknowledging it, and initiated force against that person's life. No one is claimingthat NAP is "as simple as..." That's where judges, arbitrators, and already established legal precedents come in. NAP proponents aren't advocating throwing the entire legal system out the window and starting from scratch, either. There's no debtors prisons anymore. If you don't pay taxes, then you don't get the benefits of paying them. You won't be shot...
As I understand it, it won't be a debt you have to pay, but a fine. Then if you refuse to pay the fine, you will be asked to serve a time in prison. If you refuse to serve in prison, you will be dragged there by force. If you refuse the force, you will be shot. But if the simple "threat" of imprisonment is enough to warrant retaliation, does that mean that I can steal from someone and then when the police come, I can kill them because they threatened to imprison me?
Hopefully there won't be prisons, or police, in an anarchist NAP society. If you get summoned to show up in court because you aggressed on someone's property, and you refuse, then the issue is simply unresolved, and the person you aggressed against, as well as anyone on their side, can continue to ignore your right to your own property. Being ostracized and not be allowed to participate in community and business can be way worse than prison. And if paying taxes is a threat under the NAP, does that mean I can go around killing government workers?
Technically, if they come for your stuff without reason, you refuse to give it to them, and they threaten to shoot you in order to force you to give it to them, then yes. Ethically you would be in the right. Just make sure you are aware of the consequences. The issue with that gets more complicated, though, in that if they ask for taxes for things you have already used (drove on roads, got clean water, etc), then it's money that is actually owed them. They are in the right for asking for it. If it's for things you were forced to pay for, despite not wanting to, like wars, illegal spying, etc, then that's different. |
|
|
|
Bitfloor customers who don't have Internet Archive Federal Credit Union accounts haven't gotten refunds of their Bitfloor account balances, if the lack of reports of such is any indication.
Confirmed by another user (friend of mine was using Bitfloor, I'm trying to keep him in the loop) |
|
|
|
|
Ahem.. The problem with demanding a higher wage is that there will likely be someone else on the sidelines who will gladly take your job for a lower wage. Wages go up when number of people willing to do the job (or able to do it) goes down. McDonald's workers are paid what they are, because customers don't care who served them food, or whether the food is of a marginally better quality. McDonalds will seel whatever customers demand, for the cheapest price they can get away with.
I used to work for McDonakd's corp. Margins on burgers are indeed in the 5% range. Soft drinks, on the other hand, cost about $0.05 a cup, and are a major profit provider.
Regarding "Net income: 5464 million $," that's not some fat asshole in a top hat collecting all that money. McDonald's is a publicly owned company. If you increase employee's pay, and decrease McD's net income by a few million, what you will effectively do it take money away from those same McDonald's owner's retirement accounts, and from 401K retirement accounts of a lot of older folks. Please stop advocating stealing money from poor old grandma. Unlike those teenagers at fast food restaurants, she is too old to work.
|
|
|
|
In other news, the list of charities and the status of each had finally been updated on the website: http://bitcoin100.org/charities/Please let me know if I missed anything. Regarding Virtual Doctors, apparently hey are accepting bitcoins now, and just slapped an address on their website http://www.virtualdoctors.org/other-ways-to-donate/ I hope they ca put it to use somehow. Guess I'll send out a donation? I talked to Bitcoinstore. Their distributor does't have medical supplies, but Bitcoinstore is very much open to adding such stuff to their site. So if anyone can find a medical supply distributor, let me know and I'll hook them up with Bitcoinstore guys. Hi Russah. We have received 0.09BTC from 1GaeLnmuz4UH62s41RKMgEGGwygYRyseef in our account. Is this you? Is this a test amount? Thanks very much Regarding equipment we are always needing to buy cheap/basic but sturdy PCs here in the UK to ship out to Africa, and also basic digital cameras are needed too. We don't provide medical supplies ( we connect rural clinics in Africa with doctors around the world for advice via the internet so we are a technology / information charity rather than a provider of care http://www.virtualdoctors.org) so that is not really a priority for us. Thanks Nope, not me. I'll send you the money tonight. If you just need PCs, I'd suggest Bitcoinstore.com. You may need to contact them to set up the shipping to Africa thing. Feel free to point them my way if they want proof that you are a charity. I'm sure they will enjoy the extra publicity, too. |
|
|
|
You're an idiot because:
1. You think you have a point, but don't.
2. You're actually wrong about the specific complaint you have.
3. You're the one who didn't know about any of this stuff until I pointed it out, but you try and act like you did.
Read my long post again, and try to comprehend it - I know it must be hard for you. And read the recent link I provided so won't keep acting like an idiot.
1. You're an idiot because you think your post has a point, but it's just a huge waste of time in relation to these discussions 2. My complaint was that killing wolves disrupts the cascade, not eliminates it, and your post says nothing about the means of protecting environment ecosystems, just about how they work. 3. All this crap was covered in highschool oceanography and lowest level university geology class, so yes, I knew it. I was pissed off, because I wasted such a long time reading your whole post, waiting to read something new or relevant, but it didn't answer anything about who should be responsible for protecting things, why it should be them, or how. It's basically a nature lesson, and the whole post can be summarized as: Nature is complicated, therefore government is needed, because... Apologies for disrupting the discussion. |
|
|
|
Please explain to me what I said that was wrong, instead of acting condescending.
You were confusing non-aggression principle (basically, "I will not be the first to initiate force") with nonviolence (basically, "I will not be violent, no matter what, period). NAP doesn't mean that no violence will ever happen. But here's the thing: When is self-defense be justified?
Whenever someone threatens your person or property. If someone is trying to kill you, and they will not stop until they themselves are dead, at what point does self defense end and aggression begin?
It's not so much self defense v.s. aggression, it's who initiated the aggression. As long as someone continues to threaten your life, they are continuing to initiate aggression. You can shoot them in defense, but you can also defend yourself by shooting their gun hand, by sabotaging their weapons, by hiring security to keep them away from you, or even asking why they believe you owe them your life and attempting to resolve the conflict without violence. It is entirely based on the subjective view of the person "defending" himself. If the defender kills the attacker, they have committed greater violence, and thus they've stopped following the NAP.
Same as above, it's not nonviolence, it's who initiated force. If the defender killed the attacker, he is still only responding to the initiation of force, and is still following the NAP. The only question is whether such extreme defense was justified, or if the situation could have been resolved more amicably (e.g. if the attacker was just drunk and waving a gun around, but was not serious about wanting to kill someone) If you think that the NAP can justify self defense, then what's the point? You're saying that you're not going to run around killing everything unless they attack you. Congratulations, that's a philosophy that only rabid dogs have a problem with.
Rabid dogs, and anyone who believe they have a right to your property and life, and are willing to use force to obtain it. Forcing you to pay taxes or fees for things you don't need or wasn't, at the threat of being arrested, imprisoned, or shot, is considered initiation of force in NAP. A question to the general group: What laws do you want to exist or to be implemented by a majority, which are not derived from "don't initiate force/screw with people's life and property?" Modern examples are typically bans on things. |
|
|
|
So I stand by my earlier statement: first a system of laws should generally reflect the values of the people who live under those laws, second it would be nice to include that principle in a system of laws, as that would be a symptom of good (in my opinion) values in a society.
I don't need a set of laws to run a Bitcoin node, follow Bitcoin code rules, assign value to bitcoins, and send that values to others. Bitcoin let's be do that regardless of laws. Likewise, I don't need laws to establish ownership of my own property, to respect others property, to tell others if they are infringing on my property, and if needed, to defend my property. There could be laws respecting a NAP system, or there could just be me, telling people to get off my lawn, and threatening to shoot them if they do not (though that mapight get me in trouble in many places). Even in a community with majority who don't respect NAP and think everything should belong to everyone, that majority will be forced to respect the minority of NAP followers simply because the NAP guys will be defending their property. And yes, sure, the anti-NAP majority could come in guns blazing to kick the NAP types out, but all they will have succeeded in is kicking out a few of the NAP followers, no more than shutting down a few BITCOIN nodes. It's an idea, and those can't be killed (not easily). |
|
|
|
Oh my god you're a fucking idiot trying to find something wrong with material you have no understanding of.
Hey, I'm not the one who said that removing one of the components of the trophic cascade removes the whole cascade itself. |
|
|
|
I'm not arguing against the non-aggression principle. I'm arguing against one person being able to dictate that the non-aggression principle—or any other principle—be enshrined in law. Saying that a principle is self-evident is one thing; all that really means is that it is a matter of faith and which cannot be proven, but we believe it so we call it axiomatic. Saying that we hold this truth to be self-evident is another thing. That is stating that the group has come to consensus about the axiomatic nature of that principle.
Law, by its very nature, is aggressive, and thus can't be the NAP itself. Thus it's a non-aggression principle, not a non-aggression law that we want. I'm going to do something weird and compare the NAP to our favorite currency: The NAP is basically a fundamental concept, upon which many rules and agreements can be built on. All it is, is just the understanding that "I will not initiate aggression against you, but will defend myself if you initiate aggression against me." (Which, by the way, does not mean "deadly force," you anti-NAP freaks! It could be as simple as yelling, "Git off mah lawn!") Like Bitcoin, it doesn't need a government to exist; all it needs is a person to hold such a belief. Each person who follows the idea that they shouldn't initiate force, that others shouldn't initiate force against them, and that they will defend themselves against force, is essentially like a single node in a NAP system. Other laws can be passed that try to interfere with this system, such as laws that take away your land, property, or life, but since the NAP is a distributed principle held by individuals, those laws are, on the whole, as effective as financial regulation law are for Bitcoin. So for NAP to exist, it doesn't have to be enshrined into law and enforced by a government. It can, and is, enforced by individuals already (if you respect other's stuff and defend your, you already follow the NAP), and only needs more "nodes" to come to understand it and accept it in order to grow. |
|
|
|
No, they should be based on the non-aggression principle. Support in that is the only opinion. From there everything is logical and consistent. The non-aggression principle is illogical in itself. It is the epitome of subjectivity. It says that regardless of the consequences, there should not be violence. It says that violence cannot be justified, which is a subjective, and opinionated view. Sorry, but, if that is what you believe, then you have no idea what the non-aggression principle is, and the rest of your argument is pretty much not relevant. |
|
|
|
If you're one of those arguing for property rights sans regulations, you really need to formulate your arguments against the material presented in a post I made some time ago, but bears repeating, apparently, over and over. I quote the post verbatim here.
Content of post follows, including quoted remarks from the person I was responding to:
Sorry, but that post is pretty much trash. Aside from apparently not understanding what a trophic cascade is (you said "Their [the wolf's] elimination resulted in a deleterious effect on the ecosystem services, due to the removal of a trophic cascade effect." when the result is actually an exacerbation NOT elimination of the trophic cascade, which results larger than normal ripples and damages multiple ecosystems in the cascade) the extremely TL;DR post said pretty much absolutely nothing about how it's best to preserve such environmental structures. All you have done is claim, as part of your opinion or wish, that such structures should be preserved, with no reason as to why, and much of the methods you have mentioned have been and are used by private property owners, as well as public. So please stop pointing to that text as if it's some sort of a great argument for government-based environmental protection. It's not. It's a waste of people's time, masked in big words and oversized paragraphs. |
|
|
|
In other news, the list of charities and the status of each had finally been updated on the website: http://bitcoin100.org/charities/Please let me know if I missed anything. Yay! Thanks! Could you please change Equine Angels Rescue from "no response" to "pending?" They are interested, but they are a bit busy fighting a lawsuit right now. Someone's horse was severely malnourished, so it was taken away from them and given to Equine Rescue, and now the owner is suing them saying the horse was wrongfully taken away. They shouldn't have problems winning this sit, but it's a hassle and a pain. Harvest Lots was rejected, not accepted. Regarding Virtual Doctors, apparently hey are accepting bitcoins now, and just slapped an address on their website http://www.virtualdoctors.org/other-ways-to-donate/ I hope they ca put it to use somehow. Guess I'll send out a donation? I talked to Bitcoinstore. Their distributor does't have medical supplies, but Bitcoinstore is very much open to adding such stuff to their site. So if anyone can find a medical supply distributor, let me know and I'll hook them up with Bitcoinstore guys. |
|
|
|
In a totally socialist state, every business, every activity would be owned and controlled by government. I don't think that has ever happened anywhere, but you don't have to go very far down that road before things get very unpleasant.
Soviet Union. Government owned all land, business, activity, and property. Setting up your own business, and using it to make a profit, no matter how small, was illegal and has landed people in jail. |
|
|
|
As long as there are other states, we will need a national defense because those other states will send people with tanks and bombs to annex us. ... So at the very least we need nationalized (==socialized) defense.
Sorry to interject a random thought, but, I wonder if, in our world of global trade, where it's cheaper and more productive to compete in business than with tanks, if the concept of "standing armies for defense" is quickly becoming as obsolete as "building castles for defense?" |
|
|
|
I was about to concede that one point but then a couple thoughts hit me: 1. Actually they have done all sorts of crazy construction there. 2. And even if it's illegal...why would they shit all over the place that they live?
Don't forget that people and cultures are different, too. An anarchist biker gang town would look radically different from an anarchist high class society town/gated community. |
|
|
|
Sure it's not completely free, however, it's the "free-ist" that we have: besides is or has anywhere ever been completely free? Even a city such as the one that your questions presuppose - it would not be free if any of your desired answers were in the positive.
How free is it, really, when no one is even able to own and develop the land they park their RV on? It's free, and it looks like an undeveloped craphole precisely because no one is allowed to develop it. |
|
|
|
Just ask them for the scientific proof that government has the authority it claims it does.
Or ask them to define the terms "country" and "government" without using either of the terms in each others definition. It's circular logic, but they will skirt around it all because it happens to be the current historical circumstance not because it is a concept that has any validity.
Challenge accepted. Technically the word "country" just means a geographical area, just as Scotland, England, and Whales are still "countries" under the rule of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland. Government is the organization or a group of organizations that essentially make the rules and enforce them. Makes the rules and enforces them where? Everywhere? As for countries, if they are just geographical areas then why do they change so much? eg. if you look at a map 100 years ago, it is very different to today. And especially in Europe where it changes pretty much regularly. How so if it is simply a geographical area? That was the original definition anyways. Nowadays the word country means a geographic region and the polity that controls that region. Did you say "polity" as a clever way to avoid saying "government" in your definition of "country?" |
|
|
|
I was actually considering this anarchism idea, but then I found out about "slab city" - touted as the last free city on earth. Google it (especially for pics) and tell me - isn't this what would happen in an anarchist society? And if not, why not?
Can I do any of the following in Slab City?: * Purchase land to establish a permanent residence, business location, or easement for utilities such as power lines and water pipes * Open a bank for savings and investments that can finance development projects * Open a business without having to submit paperwork that lets someone else tell me if I'm allowed to open it * Build housing, business, and industrial facilities wherever I think they would be best located * Provide private security to keep the peace and keep the area clean If no, then it's not a "free city." And since slab city is still in US government property, that means that it is still subject to all the rules, regulations, and restrictions as any other city. Basically all the restrictions and regulations of government, and none of the benefits. |
|
|
|
I've been waiting for this thing since the San Jose Bitcoin Conference, but didn't know it was under a new name. Jan demoed it to us while there, and I really really liked the features, so I'm glad I found it (Jan PM'ed me) and can finally use it. This thing is definitely Rassah-approved  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
