This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[kokjo]

NAP is survival, because if you do not resist being murdered, you die.

No, survival could include murder even before no aggression have been commited. survival does not say that you should not aggress first.

Survival can be that you strike first.

[myrkul]

NAP is survival, because if you do not resist being murdered, you die.

No, survival could include murder even before no aggression have been commited. survival does not say that you should not aggress first.

Survival can be that you strike first.

Perhaps. But if you go about life striking first, sooner or later, you're going to meet someone who will strike you down first. Not a good long-term survival strategy, whereas NAP is an excellent long-term strategy.

Now, you avoided my question, earlier. Perhaps because I phrased it incorrectly. Let us say, instead, that a government was elected that states that it owns you entirely. Would that make it true?

[kokjo]

NAP is survival, because if you do not resist being murdered, you die.

No, survival could include murder even before no aggression have been commited. survival does not say that you should not aggress first.

Survival can be that you strike first.

Perhaps. But if you go about life striking first, sooner or later, you're going to meet someone who will strike you down first. Not a good long-term survival strategy, whereas NAP is an excellent long-term strategy.

Now, you avoided my question, earlier. Perhaps because I phrased it incorrectly. Let us say, instead, that a government was elected that states that it owns you entirely. Would that make it true?

it still only takes one to strike first, to kill a NAP person. NAP persons are not invincible.

In some ways yes, the state would own me entirely. but i would resist. Ownership is not always clearly defined.

[myrkul]

NAP is survival, because if you do not resist being murdered, you die.

No, survival could include murder even before no aggression have been commited. survival does not say that you should not aggress first.

Survival can be that you strike first.

Perhaps. But if you go about life striking first, sooner or later, you're going to meet someone who will strike you down first. Not a good long-term survival strategy, whereas NAP is an excellent long-term strategy.

Now, you avoided my question, earlier. Perhaps because I phrased it incorrectly. Let us say, instead, that a government was elected that states that it owns you entirely. Would that make it true?

it still only takes one to strike first, to kill a NAP person. NAP persons are not invincible.

True. But if everyone follows "strike first," people have a much shorter life expectancy than if everyone - or even mostly everyone - is following NAP.

In some ways yes, the state would own me entirely. but i would resist. Ownership is not always clearly defined.

You would resist a legitimately elected government that claimed it owns you entirely? That implies that you know the truth. The government does not own you at all. You own yourself.

[kokjo]

In some ways yes, the state would own me entirely. but i would resist. Ownership is not always clearly defined.

You would resist a legitimately elected government that claimed it owns you entirely? That implies that you know the truth. The government does not own you at all. You own yourself.

no, that means that i subjectively thinks that i own myself, and thats what i would fight for.

This is a subjective conflict of interest, between the gov. and me.

[myrkul]

In some ways yes, the state would own me entirely. but i would resist. Ownership is not always clearly defined.

You would resist a legitimately elected government that claimed it owns you entirely? That implies that you know the truth. The government does not own you at all. You own yourself.

no, that means that i subjectively thinks that i own myself, and thats what i would fight for.

This is a subjective conflict of interest, between the gov. and me.

Boy, you are sticking hard to that moral subjectivity. The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.

You objectively own yourself. I cannot make you do anything without you deciding to do it. Even if I point a gun at you, and force you to do it, it's still you deciding to do it. You've just decided that doing as I say is preferable to being shot. I can't make you do anything with my gun. All I can do is shoot you.

[kokjo]

In some ways yes, the state would own me entirely. but i would resist. Ownership is not always clearly defined.

You would resist a legitimately elected government that claimed it owns you entirely? That implies that you know the truth. The government does not own you at all. You own yourself.

no, that means that i subjectively thinks that i own myself, and thats what i would fight for.

This is a subjective conflict of interest, between the gov. and me.

Boy, you are sticking hard to that moral subjectivity. The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.

You objectively own yourself. I cannot make you do anything without you deciding to do it. Even if I point a gun at you, and force you to do it, it's still you deciding to do it. You've just decided that doing as I say is preferable to being shot. I can't make you do anything with my gun. All I can do is shoot you.

you can make me die, in some ways you own me too.

[myrkul]

you can make me die, in some ways you own me too.

If I smash your window, does that mean I own your house?

[kokjo]

you can make me die, in some ways you own me too.

If I smash your window, does that mean I own your house?

Ownership is a tricky thing, you own the broken window. You own the things you can control.

if i steal something from you, you don't own it anymore, i own and control it. is my free will, to some extend, controllable? YES!

[myrkul]

you can make me die, in some ways you own me too.

If I smash your window, does that mean I own your house?

Ownership is a tricky thing, you own the broken window. You own the things you can control.

I see. So if I come in and break or steal all the things in your house, I've taken ownership of your entire house, and there's nothing you can do?

Criminals must have an easy time of it in Denmark.

[kokjo]

you can make me die, in some ways you own me too.

If I smash your window, does that mean I own your house?

Ownership is a tricky thing, you own the broken window. You own the things you can control.

I see. So if I come in and break or steal all the things in your house, I've taken ownership of your entire house, and there's nothing you can do?

Criminals must have an easy time of it in Denmark.

of course not, that not how it works in Denmark. someone(the state, police, or me) would take it make, and kick your ass to give me some money for the repairs.

[myrkul]

you can make me die, in some ways you own me too.

If I smash your window, does that mean I own your house?

Ownership is a tricky thing, you own the broken window. You own the things you can control.

I see. So if I come in and break or steal all the things in your house, I've taken ownership of your entire house, and there's nothing you can do?

Criminals must have an easy time of it in Denmark.

of course not, that not how it works in Denmark. someone(the state, police, or me) would take it make, and kick your ass to give me some money for the repairs.

I assume you mean "take it back."

But I own it now. You can't do that.

[kokjo]

you can make me die, in some ways you own me too.

If I smash your window, does that mean I own your house?

Ownership is a tricky thing, you own the broken window. You own the things you can control.

I see. So if I come in and break or steal all the things in your house, I've taken ownership of your entire house, and there's nothing you can do?

Criminals must have an easy time of it in Denmark.

of course not, that not how it works in Denmark. someone(the state, police, or me) would take it make, and kick your ass to give me some money for the repairs.

I assume you mean "take it back."

But I own it now. You can't do that.

yes i(or the state) could.

on the other hand:
slavery can be done, it is possible to own a human being.
do I(this is where subjectivity kicks in) think that slavery is okay? no.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

I think the crux of this is that he, in his subjective estimation, believes that the NAP violates itself based upon each person's subjective definition of what aggression is, rather than based upon how the NAP itself defines aggression. We know absolutely how the NAP defines aggression, even if he may define it differently in his subjective view. Therefore we can say that his subjective view is objectively wrong, because words have meaning and the NAP defines its own terms. Or at least we've all come together to agree subjectively that words have certain standardized meanings, and that is the measure by which we interpret words; specifically, the words of the NAP whereby aggression is defined absolutely. He's welcome to interpret them differently if he'd like, but he'll find that he is no longer able to communicate efficiently with us.

In a phrase: We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Now the fun part is determining just how consistent a subjectivist he really is. Because if he's really consistent, the most he can say is that he thinks we're probably wrong; saying we're definitely wrong would be an objective statement, implying that we have the ability to discern the nature of reality.

[myrkul]

I assume you mean "take it back."

But I own it now. You can't do that.

yes i(or the state) could.

Look now, you can't have it both ways. Either you still own it, and taking it back is moral, or I own it now, and taking it back is theft.

So which is it?

[kokjo]

I think the crux of this is that he, in his subjective estimation, believes that the NAP violates itself based upon each person's subjective definition of what aggression is, rather than based upon how the NAP itself defines aggression. We know absolutely how the NAP defines aggression, even if he may define it differently in his subjective view. Therefore we can say that his subjective view is objectively wrong, because words have meaning and the NAP defines its own terms. Or at least we've all come together to agree subjectively that words have certain standardized meanings, and that is the measure by which we interpret words; specifically, the words of the NAP whereby aggression is defined absolutely. He's welcome to interpret them differently if he'd like, but he'll find that he is no longer able to communicate efficiently with us.

In a phrase: We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Now the fun part is determining just how consistent a subjectivist he really is. Because if he's really consistent, the most he can say is that he thinks we're probably wrong; saying we're definitely wrong would be an objective statement, implying that we have the ability to discern the nature of reality.

objectivity does not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

[kokjo]

I assume you mean "take it back."

But I own it now. You can't do that.

yes i(or the state) could.

Look now, you can't have it both ways. Either you still own it, and taking it back is moral, or I own it now, and taking it back is theft.

So which is it?

Both! depending on the view.

[Walter Rothbard]

By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.

No.  You are not being forced to behave in a certain way.  You are being told that you must NOT behave in certain ways, and that if you do it will not be tolerated.

There is a major difference between "forced to do something" and "forced NOT to do something."

You can do anything you want unless you violate someone else's right to life, liberty, or property.  This principle is very consistent.

You can do anything you want to yourself.  You can not do anything you want to other people.  That is why there is a major difference between force that is used to compel others to do something, and force that is used to prohibit you from doing something to other people.

[kokjo]

By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.

No.  You are not being forced to behave in a certain way.  You are being told that you must NOT behave in certain ways, and that if you do it will not be tolerated.

There is a major difference between "forced to do something" and "forced NOT to do something."

You can do anything you want unless you violate someone else's right to life, liberty, or property.  This principle is very consistent.

You can do anything you want to yourself.  You can not do anything you want to other people.  That is why there is a major difference between force that is used to compel others to do something, and force that is used to prohibit you from doing something to other people.

go read the rest of the thread, we have been there...

[Walter Rothbard]

Personally, I knew I was finally and fully convinced of liberty when I finally believed that a free society would still have roads.  It was one of the last holdouts in my thinking.

When you believe that government (force) is not necessary even for the building of roads, then you know you are finally cured of the meme.

For me it was law and order.  I had to know of possible ways that it would be established and work without the state.

When I was presented with the ideas and thought about them, I saw the potential for them to work so much better than they currently do and that was it.  I was 100% anarchist at that moment.

Law and order was another big breaking point for me.  Once I saw law and order as a service that could be provided by a market, I had taken a plunge that took me far beyond where most people are willing to go.  I think that was around the same time as the roads realization.  I think I came to believe law and order would be provided by a free market, and roads was sort of a hazy spot in my thinking for awhile.