Freedom is ...

[Anon136]

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.

i am aware of this book and the logic contained has been demonstrated to be fallacious by bitbutter in this youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMt6CxZUOog)

[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.

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.

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?

[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.

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?

Because any right, in order to be a right, must be universal. Therefore, either everyone has a right to be aggressive, or nobody has. With me so far?

[Rassah]

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.

[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.

No commitment? No discussion.

I've already made the commitment you seek. You even quoted it:

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

[Rassah]

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?

[FirstAscent]

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?

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?

[Rassah]

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.

[Rassah]

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.

[Rassah]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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'?

Move to a gay friendly state. Kind of like moving if you don't like your landlord.

[Rassah]

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.

[myrkul]

Hey, Rassah, where is the state that will let you grow opium poppies? Where is the state that will not subject you to the TSA? Where is the state that will let you hire who you wish for whatever job you wish, at whatever rate you wish, without all the paperwork and tax forms? For that matter, where is the state that will not steal your money for its own use, and that will prevent the federal government from doing so as well?

'Cause I'll help you move, if you help me.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Can you tell me how you're supposed to be able to choose your parents? Can you choose where you were born? There are some things in life in which you simply cannot choose.

Tell me now, can the state choose where you were born? It cannot. But the state does have laws. If you were born in America, as an infant, would one choose to forfeit any services offered by the state? No.

And lastly, you voluntarily chose to come to the U.S. So I think on all counts, your argument is falling flat on its face.

[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.

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.

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?

Because any right, in order to be a right, must be universal. Therefore, either everyone has a right to be aggressive, or nobody has. With me so far?

ok sure you can define any word you like any way you like for the sake of this discussion lets define rights in such a manner that they necessarily apply to everyone, no harm in that at all. To me the rights that i believe people have orginate from my own subjective values and beliefs. You seem to claim that the rights that you believe people have originate from somewhere other than your own subjective beliefs and that you are simply an observer not the creator. Do i have this right?

[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.

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.

"which means simply that no one has the right to agress" what is the functional difference between this statement and "thou ought not aggres"? It seems to me that they are two ways of saying the same thing and that my way is simpler and more direct.

[Anon136]

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?

ah now we are getting to the heart of the matter! i do not believe that some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences. I believe this because i believe that allowing such behavior leads to outcomes that *i* do not prefer. Notice how this is different from the claim that this leads to outcomes that are universally non-preferable.

[Rassah]

Hey, Rassah, where is the state that will let you grow opium poppies? Where is the state that will not subject you to the TSA? Where is the state that will let you hire who you wish for whatever job you wish, at whatever rate you wish, without all the paperwork and tax forms? For that matter, where is the state that will not steal your money for its own use, and that will prevent the federal government from doing so as well?

'Cause I'll help you move, if you help me.

Only one I'm aware of is my little, yellow, three-person inflatable boat that I have, whenever I row it out far enough into the ocean. Can't really live on it for too long (great for tanning and relaxing though)

[Rassah]

Can you tell me how you're supposed to be able to choose your parents? Can you choose where you were born? There are some things in life in which you simply cannot choose.

What does my, birthplace or me being born to my parents, have to do with my contract with a landlord I'd be renting from? And conversely, if I had been born in an apartment, why can't the landlord of that apartment force me into a contract where I owe him $500,000 paid over my lifetime, from the time I was a baby, and without me ever even agreeing to it, simply because I was born in his apartment? That sounds like it would be a great deal for landlords, so why can't they do it?

If you were born in America, as an infant, would one choose to forfeit any services offered by the state? No.

Why not? I'm sure many would, and there are plenty of state offered services I would choose to forfeit, too.

And lastly, you voluntarily chose to come to the U.S. So I think on all counts, your argument is falling flat on its face.

I was under 18 when I moved, so it wasn't voluntary, and moreso, even if I had moved here voluntarily, I doubt I would have been given a copy of the contract that lists all the agreements and responsibilities that both I and the state agree on. The only pertinent question that immigrants get asked when moving here is "will you join the army and fight for this country if you are called?" Nothing about any other responsibilities or benefits.

[Rassah]

"which means simply that no one has the right to agress" what is the functional difference between this statement and "thou ought not aggres"?

None, you're right.

ah now we are getting to the heart of the matter! i do not believe that some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences. I believe this because i believe that allowing such behavior leads to outcomes that *i* do not prefer. Notice how this is different from the claim that this leads to outcomes that are universally non-preferable.

Not sure what you're trying to get at. NAP is a society-based understanding, similar to offering extra rights to a few selected ruling elite being a society-based understanding. It's not an individual preference.
Would you prefer an outcome where you are being hunted down or denied goods and services because earlier you preferred to initiate aggression against someone else?
The bigger issue, though, is that in our current state-run society we have some people who are allowed to initiate aggression, and some who aren't, regardless of whether the people involved prefer it that way. It essentially make some people "more equal" than others, simply because society agreed on it, and at times even when it didn't.

Edit: Holy crap typos!