Freedom is ...

[myrkul]

Here, blablahblah, this philosophy should be right up your alley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

You do so love to "prove" reality wrong.

[Snipes777]

Lol. I laugh at people who don't understand free will vs determinism. I guess you are trying to change his mind about his ability to change his mind and say he is wrong if he doesn't, just like a rock is wrong for rolling down a hill?

You have a choice to respond to this post or not. The fact that you cannot respond to is prior to the post existing doesn't invalidate free will. This is rather a function of events and time.

If you take a group of people and put them in identical environments and then give them a choice of the color chair they want to sit in, there will be some variance in the choice. Again, the option to choose a chair must exist in order for someone to choose a color of chair, but this doesn't mean that they all will have the same choice. These are very separate.

[Rassah]

Let me try this...

• If you believe that man has free will, then what really counts in terms of aggression is a person's decision on how to act, their inner intentions. Every intrinsically human act is therefore initiatory. Whereas reactions or responses, especially ones that are completely predictable and logical, are indistinguishable from a machine. Machines are "event-driven" and are only capable of responding to external stimuli, based on their sensory inputs: push a button -- something happens in response. If man has free will, there must be something else that cannot be explained by the known laws of physics (or at least Newtonian physics).
• If you believe that man does not have free will, this could suggest a deterministic world where everything that happens is an unavoidable consequence of all the things that occurred before. Taken to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as aggression or initiation of force -- all human activities are forced responses to a complex interplay of sensory inputs, genes, cosmic rays flipping a switch, etc. Even the decision-making process and appearance of free will is just an illusion.

I'm sure there are other views and variations of the above, but I think I've covered the two main camps. Neither view allows a government sanctioned legal system to function properly.

If Free Will doesn't exist:
One is forced to adopt a left-leaning view that all apparently aggressive actions are really a consequence of everything else. All police responses to force are genuine, including merciful 'decisions' that take into account all the unavoidable circumstances, including the fact that force initiated by the government is never really initiated by the ultimate act of free will.

Yeah, it makes just as much sense...

[myrkul]

In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?

It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but in both free-will and non-free-will world views, it seems that initiation of force and responses to force cannot logically co-exist. It's either one or the other. Thus, a logically consistent and 'correct' interpretation is not possible. Besides, I thought you were a big believer in an objectivist universe -- either free will objectively exists, or it doesn't. Which one is it?

You're playing your word games again. You would not have made your statement if I had not made mine. It is in response to it. To demonstrate, refute the points Holliday will make when he next responds to this thread. But do it before he does.

A word game?! Clearly you're in a state of shock, since you are faced with a choice between 2 opposite philosophical viewpoints, and neither of them allows the NAP to work in the idealistic way that you hoped it would.

Your logical fallacy is...

I note you still haven't refuted Holliday's next post. How come you haven't initiated that action yet?

[myrkul]

"You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist."

Therefore, in order for my reasoning about the NAP and "free will" to be a fallacy, could you show one such possibility?

Free will exists, and people make choices in response to others' actions. And in the words of Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

[herzmeister]

The wave function collapse may hint that the world is not that mechanical determined by "outside" influences, and that free will exists.

Maybe we're living as avatars in a simulation, as the world is only being rendered when there is an observer.

Maybe this simulation runs in a technologically high advanced civilization, and they run it because they still haven't figured out economics.

[Rassah]

Well, it is a thread about freedom. Have you ever wondered whether or not free will exists? Don't take my word for what view you should take -- I've identified my own view as a belief because I don't know enough about the world to be able to take a logical stance one way or the other. However, I've identified some logical consequences of both views, and neither bodes well for the NAP.

Doesn't bode well for any system of crime and punishment, whether anarchy with NAP, or democracy with a police force. So, either a government with a police force, and people practicing NAP privately don't exist, or there is something wrong with your premise.

[myrkul]

Well, it is a thread about freedom. Have you ever wondered whether or not free will exists? Don't take my word for what view you should take -- I've identified my own view as a belief because I don't know enough about the world to be able to take a logical stance one way or the other. However, I've identified some logical consequences of both views, and neither bodes well for the NAP.

Doesn't bode well for any system of crime and punishment, whether anarchy with NAP, or democracy with a police force. So, either a government with a police force, and people practicing NAP privately don't exist, or there is something wrong with your premise.

When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.

[Snipes777]

Yea.... logical consequences of falsehoods are irrelevant. Like the logical consequence of the Earth's atmosphere being poison is the mass genocide for the human race, except maybe a handful of people. Only this "logical conclusion" is based on a false premise and thus, has about zero effect on (or help in describing) reality.

[Rassah]

When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.

Given a free-will POV, people can choose to reply to others' actions and call it a response in the casual sense. However, it is not a "forced reaction" in the sense that a ball bounces back after hitting an obstacle. If a reaction is somehow forced, this implies that there was no choice in the matter.

It seems that you want to have it both ways: enjoying the freedom of having free will, while avoiding the necessary responsibility that goes with it!

Reactions aren't forced. They are chosen and deliberate, and the person choosing to react bears responsibility for his actions, just as the person to whom this reaction is in response to is responsible for his initial action.
What's your point?

[Snipes777]

co·erce 
/kōˈərs/
Verb

   1. Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
   2. Obtain (something) by such means.

[Dalkore]

When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.

Given a free-will POV, people can choose to reply to others' actions and call it a response in the casual sense. However, it is not a "forced reaction" in the sense that a ball bounces back after hitting an obstacle. If a reaction is somehow forced, this implies that there was no choice in the matter.

It seems that you want to have it both ways: enjoying the freedom of having free will, while avoiding the necessary responsibility that goes with it!

This has been one of my major areas of contention.   If I had to name a single habit of society that keeps gnawing at us and hurting our character, it is the continual habit of people trying to dodge responsibility and the inability for them to take responsibility for their actions.

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.   Where you don't get to choice what is your responsibility or not.  I personally think we can easier determine between reasonable people what these basic responsibilities are, and come up with rules/laws to enforce them.   AnCap thinks these are a choice, but in fact they are not if you want a functioning and thriving society.  You need a basic environment/foundation for people to build and evolve on.

[Snipes777]

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

...and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.   Where you don't get to choice what is your responsibility or not.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
...and the funny part that you want a State in order to solve the possible eventual problem of getting a State

I personally think we can easier determine between reasonable people what these basic responsibilities are, and come up with rules/laws to enforce them.   AnCap thinks these are a choice, but in fact they are not if you want a functioning and thriving society.  You need a basic environment/foundation for people to build and evolve on.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
At least most AnCaps agree there are rules, they are just determined by an infinite set of voluntary market transactions and the social ostracism of "bad actors" (or people who choose systems opposing to yours), rather than the arbitrary decrees of a handful of politicians of whom were never agreed upon by everyone affected. (Obama was elected by about 1/6th of the USA, as only 1/3rd of Americans even voted. Congressional and local elections have even lower turnouts on average).

[myrkul]

When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.

Given a free-will POV, people can choose to reply to others' actions and call it a response in the casual sense. However, it is not a "forced reaction" in the sense that a ball bounces back after hitting an obstacle. If a reaction is somehow forced, this implies that there was no choice in the matter.

It seems that you want to have it both ways: enjoying the freedom of having free will, while avoiding the necessary responsibility that goes with it!

Reactions aren't forced. They are chosen and deliberate, and the person choosing to react bears responsibility for his actions, just as the person to whom this reaction is in response to is responsible for his initial action.
What's your point?

That in a world with free will, every human action and so-called 'reaction' is initiatory in nature. Labelling something a coerced response would be intellectually dishonest and a kind of cognitive dissonance.

I see. so, the rape victim is actually initiating sex with her attacker, huh?

A Libertarian as a reacting party could claim the right to choose to respond in some way, while simultaneously claiming that they were 'forced' and therefore not responsible for their actions.

Ahh. You think that rejecting coercion somehow is an attempt to absolve the coerced of responsibility?

Quite the contrary. In fact, accepting coercion, "Just following orders," that's rejecting responsibility for your actions.

[Dalkore]

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

...and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.   Where you don't get to choice what is your responsibility or not.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
...and the funny part that you want a State in order to solve the possible eventual problem of getting a State

I personally think we can easier determine between reasonable people what these basic responsibilities are, and come up with rules/laws to enforce them.   AnCap thinks these are a choice, but in fact they are not if you want a functioning and thriving society.  You need a basic environment/foundation for people to build and evolve on.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
At least most AnCaps agree there are rules, they are just determined by an infinite set of voluntary market transactions and the social ostracism of "bad actors" (or people who choose systems opposing to yours), rather than the arbitrary decrees of a handful of politicians of whom were never agreed upon by everyone affected. (Obama was elected by about 1/6th of the USA, as only 1/3rd of Americans even voted. Congressional and local elections have even lower turnouts on average).

Funny thing is that your 1st response to link a website. 

1.  Stating the fact of human nature is not a logical fallacy.  It is the way things are, I operate in the present and read about the past.

2.  That is not what I said at all.  I said that as people skirt the laws, the voluntary society will fall into a state of lawlessness and the longer that persists the more likely a State will form to deal with it with enforced rules.

3.  I never said AnCaps didnt agree there are rules.  I am saying humans tend to cut corners at others expenses and when you have a weak state (AnCap) that will be more rampant. 

You need to actually read what people say and respond with your own thoughts.   Your all over the board on a very direct statement.

[Anon136]

Ok but *why* does being born into a body constitute legitimate acquisition of that body? Maybe bob believes that bob owns everyones body. Specifically why is your theory right and bobs theory wrong?

I answered that in the example explanation. You have the first, best claim. Bob is wrong because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to expel me.

"An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.

Well, when you go into a restaurant, you don't explicitly agree to give them money for a delicious burger, and they don't explicitly agree to give you a delicious burger for your money. But when you purchase a burger, and it is not up to your standards, you do go back (or call them, if you've left) and get a better burger, or your money back.

Many of these agreements are exactly this sort of "understood" agreement. It doesn't matter why you respect his right to life, for instance, that you do is sufficient.

ok why does being the first person to occupy a body grant you a better claim than not being first. For me the answer is that accepting the legitimacy of the homesteading principle allows people to peacefully co exist. This is good to me because i personally prefer peaceful coexistance to the alternative. Your job is to demonstrate that property ownership is more than a useful convention well suited to acheving perticular goals that are personally important to you but rather an intrinsic law of the universe, which i still do not think you have done. So basically my position is that we own our bodies because recognizing the social convention of property ownership allows more people to acheve the things that are importent to them than the alternative would allow your position is that we own our bodies because there is some fundamental law akin to the laws of physics which states that this is so. What is this law how do we use either the scientific method or deduction to demonstrate its existence?

"Many of these agreements are exactly this sort of "understood" agreement. It doesn't matter why you respect his right to life, for instance, that you do is sufficient." good point and it should be noted that fundamentally we are on the same team. The only thing we disagree about is how to come to the conclusions that we both agree with.

[myrkul]

Ok but *why* does being born into a body constitute legitimate acquisition of that body? Maybe bob believes that bob owns everyones body. Specifically why is your theory right and bobs theory wrong?

I answered that in the example explanation. You have the first, best claim. Bob is wrong because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to expel me.

OK, why does being the first person to occupy a body grant you a better claim than not being first?

Because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to force me out. (unless of course, I voluntarily abdicated possession of my own body) And we definitely agree that using force is not a legitimate method of gaining property, right? If he sought a way to get me to voluntarily abdicate my body, then that itself recognizes my better claim on the body. No matter what action he takes, he's affirming my ownership of my body, even as he tries to take it.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul owns his body. Give him that. He still owes taxes though if he's going to take up residence in some country and use their infrastructure.

[Dalkore]

Myrkul owns his body. Give him that. He still owes taxes though if he's going to take up residence in some country and use their infrastructure.

I agree as well.  He does own his body.

[myrkul]

I agree as well.  He does own his body.

Great. Since we all agree on the principle of self-ownership, we can work from there. I do not wish to pay for services I neither need, nor desire, such as the drone strikes killing children in the middle east. Since the military makes up the vast majority of government spending, I feel no great desire to pay any taxes. Sales tax, similarly, is an intrusion upon my private dealings with merchants. If they are providing me needed and worthwhile services, why do they feel the need to point a gun at me to make me pay?

Road construction and maintenance is paid for out of the taxes on gasoline, so while I object to the monopoly and taxation on principles, if we're going to have a monopoly, that seems to be the fairest way to pay for it, aside from direct tolls. A private system could probably do it for cheaper, but you live with what you've got. Same with the taxes on liquor, cigarettes, and similar products.

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't. If I don't, why did I pay so much money to the previous occupant? Why did I not simply assume the payments to the government? That's what you do when you get a new apartment, is it not? You simply start paying rent? So property taxes seems to be the basest of protection schemes. Either you pay up, or bad things happen to you.

So, tell you what, drastically cut military spending, and get rid of all income/capital gains taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, and I'll happily pay what remains.