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

[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?

Both! depending on the view.

Not how the world works, sweetheart.

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

[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.

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

Of course, that's assuming we're all just brains in a vat. Which is an assumption for which we have no logical basis, nor could we outside of revelatory intervention by the vat holder(s).

https://i.imgur.com/xe5EESr.jpg

[Walter Rothbard]

but if i don't support the NAP and i see it as an aggression

You can't just randomly call stuff aggression and then use that as a pretense for initiating force.  Aggression is pretty well-defined.  It's not just some subjective opinion.

If I have a bag of weed and you take it, that's aggression.  If I try to stop you from taking my bag of weed, or if I put you on notice that I won't tolerate you taking my bag of weed, that's not aggression at all, and calling it aggression doesn't make it so.

If you take my bag of weed, you've initiated force against me, by violating my right to property.  If I respond with force (proportionately) I have not initiated force.  You were the one who initiated it.

Since I am justified in initiating force against you in that situation, I am not initiating force by putting you on notice that I would use force in such circumstances.

[kokjo]

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking.

[Walter Rothbard]

What Myrkul said, and:

If it is force, and you want to use force to stop us from using NAP, then explain to me by what principle you determine the proper use of force to prevent us from using our alleged force.

Unless you're a pacifist. In which case... Go eat some sushi and drink your Starbucks Mocha-china-double-non-fat-macarina-latte.

A true pacifist would have to support the non-aggression principle; pacifism is a superset of NAP.

Consistent pacifists certainly couldn't support the use of force to do any of the things that government does.

There have actually been many great pacifist thinkers who have made great contributions to libertarian thought, such as Leo Tolstoy.

[Walter Rothbard]

It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay".

NAP is self-violating.

No, it is quite different.  In one case, the gun is holstered, the owner is smiling, and he says the gun would only come out if you initiated force.  In the other, the gun is being used to enslave.

[kokjo]

please define aggression.

[kokjo]

It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay".

NAP is self-violating.

No, it is quite different.  In one case, the gun is holstered, the owner is smiling, and he says the gun would only come out if you initiated force.  In the other, the gun is being used to enslave.

Same result. I know that its still a threat even when its holstered.

[Walter Rothbard]

i have also explained why, by NAP you are forcing me to agree with you on NAP, or get my ass kicked. it is as simple as that.

You don't have to agree with it.  You just aren't permitted to violate it, because doing so would be a crime.  You can disagree with the principle all you want!  You can hold any beliefs you want!  But whatever you believe, if you violate someone's right to life, liberty, or property, you are committing a crime.

If i considers NAP a form of aggression,

You can consider it a form of aggression if you want.  That doesn't make it so.

We can agree on NAP is good, but make no mistake it is threat of force for a person that does not agree on NAP.

Nope, force is only threatened for people who violate the principle, not for merely disagreeing with it.

[Walter Rothbard]

please define aggression.

Violating the right to life, liberty, or property.

Equivalently: initiating force.  (And please don't respond, yet again, with the fallacy that threatening to respond with force is the same as initiating force.  It is not.)

[myrkul]

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking.

OK, let's take those reasons separately:
1. You've been taught that it is wrong.
2. You don't want to be a slave yourself.
3. Your society has taught you that everyone has equal rights.

OK, two of those are external reasons, and basically boil down to "cause I was told to," but number two there is internal, and therefore objective, even to a brain in a jar. So: Why do you not want to be a slave?

[Walter Rothbard]

oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not?

Morality (or ethics) is not just subjective opinion.  It is something that can be reasoned about with logic.  It is something that mankind can reason about and discover.

Mankind can work out consistent principles and conclude that violating the rights to life, liberty, and property is immoral.

[kokjo]

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking.

OK, let's take those reasons separately:
1. You've been taught that it is wrong.
2. You don't want to be a slave yourself.
3. Your society has taught you that everyone has equal rights.

OK, two of those are external reasons, and basically boil down to "cause I was told to," but number two there is internal, and therefore objective, even to a brain in a jar. So: Why do you not want to be a slave?

the second im am also told.

[myrkul]

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking.

OK, let's take those reasons separately:
1. You've been taught that it is wrong.
2. You don't want to be a slave yourself.
3. Your society has taught you that everyone has equal rights.

OK, two of those are external reasons, and basically boil down to "cause I was told to," but number two there is internal, and therefore objective, even to a brain in a jar. So: Why do you not want to be a slave?

the second im am also told.

You don't want to be a slave because someone told you that you don't want to be a slave?

Do you just believe anything you are told to believe?

[kokjo]

oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not?

Morality (or ethics) is not just subjective opinion.  It is something that can be reasoned about with logic.  It is something that mankind can reason about and discover.

Mankind can work out consistent principles and conclude that violating the rights to life, liberty, and property is immoral.

Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.

[kokjo]

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking.

OK, let's take those reasons separately:
1. You've been taught that it is wrong.
2. You don't want to be a slave yourself.
3. Your society has taught you that everyone has equal rights.

OK, two of those are external reasons, and basically boil down to "cause I was told to," but number two there is internal, and therefore objective, even to a brain in a jar. So: Why do you not want to be a slave?

the second im am also told.

You don't want to be a slave because someone told you that you don't want to be a slave?

yup. if i was born a slave, and i had accepted my faith. I might have had a different opinion. Not all slaves wants to be free.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

What Myrkul said, and:

If it is force, and you want to use force to stop us from using NAP, then explain to me by what principle you determine the proper use of force to prevent us from using our alleged force.

Unless you're a pacifist. In which case... Go eat some sushi and drink your Starbucks Mocha-china-double-non-fat-macarina-latte.

A true pacifist would have to support the non-aggression principle; pacifism is a superset of NAP.

Consistent pacifists certainly couldn't support the use of force to do any of the things that government does.

There have actually been many great pacifist thinkers who have made great contributions to libertarian thought, such as Leo Tolstoy.

I hear what you're saying, but obviously we'd part ways with pacifists when it comes to self-defense. Therefore I can't say I'd categorize NAP as a subset of pacifism, but rather as a competing philosophy.

Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?

Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking.

https://i.imgur.com/XeJHY7K.jpg

oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not?

Morality (or ethics) is not just subjective opinion.  It is something that can be reasoned about with logic.  It is something that mankind can reason about and discover.

Mankind can work out consistent principles and conclude that violating the rights to life, liberty, and property is immoral.

I'd have to part with you there. You need a rational basis for morality, and at best you get pragmatism when "efficiency" (good) is qualified by a goal. That's still better than what he supposes though.

For me, I don't care why we arrive at our agreement. As long as we can agree not to stab and rob each other, that's good enough for me.

[myrkul]

Not all slaves wants to be free.

You are a fine example of this fact. You're fighting very hard not to be free.

[kokjo]

Not all slaves wants to be free.

You are a fine example of this fact. You're fighting very hard not to be free.

oh. i want to.
 im fighting for all them who does not want to, but you are trying to force freedom upon.

[myrkul]

Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.

If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it?

Not all slaves wants to be free.

You are a fine example of this fact. You're fighting very hard not to be free.

oh. i want to.
 im fighting for all them who does not want to, but you are trying to force freedom upon.

Nobody is forcing freedom on anyone.