|
Aww, and I was hoping they wouldn't come together or do anything. Had my parachute all ready for the jump and everything.
|
|
|
|
But if you were to rent, would you complain that part of your rent payment goes to property improvements you're not interested in? Would you complain if the landlords said 'no pets'?
No, because it is not my house. I am just buying the privilege of living there, and have voluntarily agreed on doing it together with my landlord, along with all the issues you mentioned, when I first moved in. Move to a gay friendly state. Kind of like moving if you don't like your landlord.
Aside from it being a Federal issue, are you implying that the house I own is actually owned by the state and not me? Is everything in reality owned by the government, like it was in the Soviet Union? And when did I agree that anything I buy from someone should involve a third party, like a government landlord? I don't think your example works very well. |
|
|
|
|
I also came from a country that was the opposite of NAP, where everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others, and speaking badly about the government or any of its propaganda resulted in a visit from an official, along with some uncomfortable questions and names placed on blacklists. So, I may be a bit biased, but we do have quite a bit of " you're unpatriotic" accusations and no-fly-list issues, and the whole " imprisoned without charge and renditioned to a foreign country for a false accusation of terrorism" was only recently stopped.
|
|
|
|
More to the point, what's the point of discussing NAP? Where do you feel that you are missing out on NAP in your life?
I'm gay. My partner and I own a house we both pay for, but it's in his name. If he dies, I shouldn't have to pay inheritance tax to take ownership of his house. If I refuse to, since our marriage isn't recognized, I will have others come after me for my money. I like to grow flowers. Some of them are beautiful, but were deemed dangerous and banned because others use them to make drugs. I can't grow them, because I'll risk having my door busted down, even though I'm only interested in the flowers. I like to travel, and do so a lot. Neither I, nor the airlines, want to put up with the idiotic taking off shoes and not carrying liquids rule, but both of us are forced to comply with them. I wish to hire someone to do some web work for me. To do so, and pay them legally, I have to report whom I'm hiring, fill out forms, and pay a variety of taxes and insurances, even if it's just a temporary contract work. If I don't do this (and most people don't), I risk getting in trouble with the government. Plus there's the issue of my tax dollars going to pay for things like police arresting nonviolent drug offenders and giving them food and housing for months, or going to pay for military that at times tends to kill innocent civilians with no repercussions, both perfect examples of aggression being initiated unjustly. |
|
|
|
if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal.
So, you're only willing to accept the challenge on condition that I achieve the impossible? Clearly, you're not interested in a rational discussion. What surprise! What did I say -- it's a religion "faith-based doctrine"! (edited to be more precise.) Prove, or logically demonstrate, that in a NAP society, the NAP principle will fail then. That's a proof positive. |
|
|
|
my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.
ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive? Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why? |
|
|
|
Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?
So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive. You are making a positive claim here this means you hold the burden of proof. No one claimed anything like that. You are misunderstanding NAP, which means simply that no one has the right to agress, AND those who do will be aggressed against in kind. A NAP society will not be any more or less devoid of criminals than the current one, aside from the fact that some crimes today are actually legalized, which would still be considered unfair aggression under NAP. |
|
|
|
everything you've said recently has already been debunked multiple times but you never listen.
I'm sure I totally missed it, but could you please repeat your debunking of the " leave others' stuff alone and don't be an asshole" idea? I'd love to hear how that is debunked exactly. |
|
|
|
And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?
i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon. Do you honestly believe that people could not agree upon "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone"? History says yes. See communist revolutions, religion, colonialism. |
|
|
|
The only problem I foresee is that it will scare the fuck out of Rassah when so much money starts showing up on the books.
I deal with tens of millions of dollars every day at my job, and sign off on checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it's all just numbers to me at this point. |
|
|
|
|
So, freedom is not being coerced, except in some cases where coercion is OK...
Or at least where you personally think it's not coercion, even if others feel coerced.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when I used to live in USSR, the general legal understanding was that the government owns everything. Your apartment, your money, your posessions; everything was technically still owned by the government, even if it was in your possession. Private ownership was essentially illegal. It was a strange feeling, though. We basically felt that everything we worked for, bought, and owned, was ours, but had to remind ourselves, against our "natural" inclinations, that the government still owns everything. Dreaming about America, and finally moving out of USSR, the idea of personal ownership, that what we have is actually ours and can't be taken away, was like something out of a sci-fi or a fantasy movie. Right up there with the idea that USA is full of wonderful futuristic malls with talking machines everywhere, and that everyone lived in a "modern architecture" style beach house with cameras at the front door that opened the doors automatically.
|
|
|
|
so what is liberty? liberty is the *freedom* to pursue your own ends free from coercion but not using the term 'coercion' to apply to paying taxes, levies, fees, rents, tariffs or payments if you are using infrastructure to which those payments apply and not using the term 'coercion' to apply to regulations which prevent uncaring, greedy or ignorant persons and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others so long as your means are not responsible for coercing other individuals or affecting other individuals in a negative way.
FTFY The irony is that you are basically saying that "Freedom is free to do such and such, BUT DON'T DO THAT!" I mean, why shouldn't someone be free to use the term "coercion" however they wish? (aside from it hurting your feelings or something) |
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm going out to lunch with the director of http://www.myrefugehouse.com/ in a couple hours. I've donated a large amount to this charity before so I can probably get them to accept bitcoin. Can someone update me on the status of bitcoin100 and what the current pitch is? I am one of the original 100, but I haven't paid attention to what has happened. If I get them to accept it, will they get 100 bitcoins? They just have to add a way to accept Bitcoin to their donation page. I'm not sure if they'll get 100 Bitcoin, but there is 49.36284 ready to be donated already. |
|
|
|
Repaying what exactly? He never actually took anything (other than advantage of other people who trusted him)
You would make a terrible bookie. Yeah, I wouldn't have the stomach for the violence  |
|
|
|
Repaying what exactly? He never actually took anything (other than advantage of other people who trusted him) |
|
|
|
Wouldn't they also go unnoticed in a regulatory society, and thus will go unenforced? What do government regulators have that people who are involved with a person doing those things directly don't?
A law requiring enforcement. How would that help if the act goes unnoticed though? Excellent observation. That's exactly the problem in an AnCap type of society. There's a much less consistent noticing of such things, unlike a society which enforces such things through seasonal inspections and such. okay, I'll grant you that one. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't they also go unnoticed in a regulatory society, and thus will go unenforced? What do government regulators have that people who are involved with a person doing those things directly don't?
A law requiring enforcement. How would that help if the act goes unnoticed though? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
