Freedom is ...

[Rassah]

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.

[CountSparkle]

They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.

The only similarity is that the NAP is also a fucking religion -- you're just too blind to see it.

Religion requires a belief in some higher power or something spiritual that has to be taken for granted but can't otherwise be proved. At most the NAP is a philosophy. Mostly, though, it's just an understanding, since all it is, in it's totality, is "don't fuck with my stuff, and I won't fuck with yours." I'm not sure where you are getting "religion" out of that, unless your belief is that normal people should be able to fuck with others' stuff without permission, and doing otherwise is some crazy cooky nutcase idea.

[myrkul]

They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.

The only similarity is that the NAP is also a fucking religion -- you're just too blind to see it.

Religion requires a belief in some higher power or something spiritual that has to be taken for granted but can't otherwise be proved. At most the NAP is a philosophy. Mostly, though, it's just an understanding, since all it is, in it's totality, is "don't fuck with my stuff, and I won't fuck with yours." I'm not sure where you are getting "religion" out of that, unless your belief is that normal people should be able to fuck with others' stuff without permission, and doing otherwise is some crazy cooky nutcase idea.

Higher power~something spiritual? How about: blind faith that the non-aggression principle (not principal) is infallible and therefore all that's required to prevent chaos and disintegration of society when the government goes AWOL?

No... people following that principle is all that's required. Not even all people. Just most, and those who don't being considered criminals. The only difference between that and now, is that not all that don't are considered criminals.

Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.

Then test our "faith". Can you think of a single situation where it would not work?

Besides, the NAP is a hypocritical statement. It "throws the first punch" by laying down the law and telling people what they can't do. I'd rather have a government because at least they consist of human beings who are capable of intelligent thoughts, unlike a dumb principle that any mindless drone can recite.

...
NAP throws the first punch... by telling people they can't throw the first punch. Logic is not your friend, is it?

[CountSparkle]

Higher power~something spiritual? How about: blind faith that the non-aggression principle (not principal) is infallible and therefore all that's required to prevent chaos and disintegration of society when the government goes AWOL?

You are the only one claiming it will prevent chaos. There will still be chaos, as there is now under government rule, because there will always be assholes trying to commit crimes.

Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.

"Empirical evidence?" The NAP isn't going to do diffuse conflict scenarios, it will either prevent or eliminate them. To say otherwise is to claim that things like the threat of punishment or being actually killed by police will not prevent someone from committing crimes or stop them from being able to commit them in the future. The enforcement method is the same.

Besides, the NAP is a hypocritical statement. It "throws the first punch" by laying down the law and telling people what they can't do. I'd rather have a government because at least they consist of human beings who are capable of intelligent thoughts, unlike a dumb principle that any mindless drone can recite.

The opposite of NAP throwing that first punch is the government throwing the first punch by laying down the law and telling people that they MUST use aggression and violence against others. That's the opposite of NAP.

[myrkul]

Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.

Then test our "faith". Can you think of a single situation where it would not work?

Yes, and I already mentioned such an example before. If you want me to remind you, first you'll have to promise to accept it with an open mind and to forever STFU about the NAP being 'infallible'. In addition, you should then quit propagandising An-Cap with discredited arguments (about the NAP's infallibility) under the false pretence of "discussion".

If you can disprove an argument, intellectual honesty demands no less than I reject it in the future.

Then test our "faith".

And just to clarify your position: do you concede that your confidence in the non-aggression principle is a kind of faith? Those double-quotes you used may have indicated sarcasm.

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?

[Snipes777]

...the result of people applying Universally Preferable Behavior and logical reason to their moral understanding and interactions with other people.

[myrkul]

...the result of people applying Universally Preferable Behavior and logical reason to their moral understanding and interactions with other people.

+1

[Anon136]

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. Why ought all people not be aggressive? For me i personally would prefer that people not be aggressive but thats simply because *I* prefer peace and prosperity not because i believe peace and prosperity are objectively preferable. I mean lets call this what it is, you are saying that some things are objectively preferable. The phrase "objectively preferable" is like a paradox it makes no sense to me, the very idea of preference implies an element of subjectivity. forget the nap, I'll be happy if you can demonstrate any preference that is in any sense objectively valid.

[Snipes777]

I'll be happy if you can demonstrate any preference that is in any sense objectively valid.

There is a book called Universally Preferable Behavior that attempts to prove this, as well as years of discussion and fine-tuning beyond this. Reiteration here would be ridiculous, so I invite you to research into it. The book and audiobook are available for free.

[myrkul]

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.

No, 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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

No, 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.

But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting.

[myrkul]

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.

No, 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.

But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting.

You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you?

[FirstAscent]

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.

No, 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.

But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting.

You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you?

You're having trouble answering my statements, aren't you? If you can't, or don't want to, fine. We can just discuss movies instead. Your choice.

[myrkul]

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.

No, 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.

But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting.

You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you?

You're having trouble answering my statements, aren't you? If you can't, or don't want to, fine. We can just discuss movies instead. Your choice.

I have no trouble answering your statements, but if my conversation partner isn't calm and rational, there's no point, is there? Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?

[FirstAscent]

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.

No, 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.

But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting.

You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you?

You're having trouble answering my statements, aren't you? If you can't, or don't want to, fine. We can just discuss movies instead. Your choice.

I have no trouble answering your statements, but if my conversation partner isn't calm and rational, there's no point, is there? Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?

If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want.

[myrkul]

Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?

If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want.

It's a simple question. Simply indicate that you are calm and rational enough to converse without insults, and we can continue our conversations. What I want is calm and rational conversation. Are you saying that you're not calm and rational enough to give me that?

[FirstAscent]

Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?

If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want.

It's a simple question. Simply indicate that you are calm and rational enough to converse without insults, and we can continue our conversations. What I want is calm and rational conversation. Are you saying that you're not calm and rational enough to give me that?

I'm not saying anything one way or another regarding the matter, nor am I going to. Address my statements if you are able to, or choose not to. I have no need to engage in agreements with you.

[myrkul]

Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?

If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want.

It's a simple question. Simply indicate that you are calm and rational enough to converse without insults, and we can continue our conversations. What I want is calm and rational conversation. Are you saying that you're not calm and rational enough to give me that?

I'm not saying anything one way or another regarding the matter, nor am I going to. Address my statements if you are able to, or choose not to. I have no need to engage in agreements with you.

In other words, that's exactly what you're saying. Have a nice day.

[myrkul]

Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.

Then test our "faith". Can you think of a single situation where it would not work?

Yes, and I already mentioned such an example before. If you want me to remind you, first you'll have to promise to accept it with an open mind and to forever STFU about the NAP being 'infallible'. In addition, you should then quit propagandising An-Cap with discredited arguments (about the NAP's infallibility) under the false pretence of "discussion".

If you can disprove an argument, intellectual honesty demands no less than I reject it in the future.
...
...
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?

So, you're saying that it's impossible to prove that the NAP is not universal? Or that it's impossible to disprove my argument that it is? If either of those is what you're saying, then you concede defeat, and I accept your surrender.

[myrkul]

Sure, there is some empirical evidence suggesting that the NAP could work to diffuse or avoid a number of specific conflict scenarios. However, using inductive reasoning to conclude that "therefore it will work in every situation" requires a leap of faith. Myrkul's (and others') supreme confidence that the NAP will work, regardless of what situation anyone attempts to throw at them, shows faith in the NAP.

Then test our "faith". Can you think of a single situation where it would not work?

Yes, and I already mentioned such an example before. If you want me to remind you, first you'll have to promise to accept it with an open mind and to forever STFU about the NAP being 'infallible'. In addition, you should then quit propagandising An-Cap with discredited arguments (about the NAP's infallibility) under the false pretence of "discussion".

If you can disprove an argument, intellectual honesty demands no less than I reject it in the future.
...
...
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?

So, you're saying that it's impossible to prove that the NAP is not universal? Or that it's impossible to disprove my argument that it is? If either of those is what you're saying, then you concede defeat, and I accept your surrender.

I was under the impression that proofs are done on positive claims, not negative ones. I can show an example where the NAP fails your claim of universality, but that doesn't constitute a proof and you know it! You're just trying to avoid any commitment on your part that will get you to stop your endless preaching.

Would that not disprove my claim that it is universal, and thereby prove to me that it is not? If you can make such an argument, do so. I think you're just stalling and avoiding actually presenting your argument.