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

[Walter Rothbard]

He started the fist fight. I ended it.

it is correct that he hit you first, but also that you hurt him first...

On the contrary, I did nothing to him.

Yes you did. You hurt him by declaring NAP, can't you remember? word can hurt too. 

The solution to that is that nobody should be compelled to associate with anybody.

[1714669243]

1714669243

[1714669243]

1714669243

[1714669243]

1714669243

[1714669243]

1714669243

[Mike Christ]

C'mon now, we're civilized* folk.  There's no need to hit someone because they said something you didn't like

* Debatable.

[kokjo]

* Debatable.

+1

[Mike Christ]

Then again, Kokjo believes the action of existing is enough provocation to kill someone.  There are few scenarios where this is applicable:

1. Zombie T-Virus
2. Radioactive
3. Satan
4. Having your soul used in a weird Japanese gore film to power a supermassive zombie radioactive satan-bot.

But in most cases, I think we can all agree that merely existing shouldn't be cause to hurt someone.  Unless you're a statist, of course, and making the first move is fair game.

[kokjo]

Then again, Kokjo believes the action of existing is enough provocation to kill someone.  There are few scenarios where this is applicable:

1. Zombie T-Virus
2. Radioactive
3. Satan
4. Having your soul used in a weird Japanese gore film to power a supermassive zombie radioactive satan-bot.

But in most cases, I think we can all agree that merely existing shouldn't be cause to hurt someone.  Unless you're a statist, of course, and making the first move is fair game.

not sure if serous, or making fun of me...

[myrkul]

You're attempting to use something that's basically a feel-good, one-liner motto as a commandment/ proxy for governmental rule. And then you eagerly point the finger and blame the other side whenever there's a conflict, because of course the NAP can't be too simplistic!

It is immoral to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.

How is that too simplistic? It outlaws all the crimes that everyone agrees on: Murder, Theft, Rape, Fraud, Robbery, and Assault.*
That pretty much covers keeping society civilized, don't it?

*I'm probably forgetting something here.

[Mike Christ]

Then again, Kokjo believes the action of existing is enough provocation to kill someone.  There are few scenarios where this is applicable:

1. Zombie T-Virus
2. Radioactive
3. Satan
4. Having your soul used in a weird Japanese gore film to power a supermassive zombie radioactive satan-bot.

But in most cases, I think we can all agree that merely existing shouldn't be cause to hurt someone.  Unless you're a statist, of course, and making the first move is fair game.

not sure if serous, or making fun of me...

Not trying to make fun of you  But I just don't agree that being is cause for aggression.

[myrkul]

Dammit I keep getting it wrong! I guess I could never make a truly obedient An-Cap or Libertarian supporter. No space in there for community or non-monetary values.

Uhm... What!?

[Mike Christ]

Better a moderate monarchical or democracy-type thing that can at least change and evolve, rather than the NAP which sounds like a fundamentalist substitute for 'god', or "the Lord".

We must all switch off our brains and have faith that the N.A.P. will protect us in flood and in famine, in drought, and in health! We must all abide by the one true God oops.. N.A.P.!, for if there is dissent, this can only lead to conflict and darkness, and independent thought oops EVIL!!

Dammit I keep getting it wrong! I guess I could never make a truly obedient An-Cap or Libertarian supporter. No space in there for community or non-monetary values.

In thousands of years, they've never changed and never evolved.  People change; governments still wage war and waste tax money.  We're still chained to serve those above us.  And I don't see how flood and famine have anything to do with NAP; flood and famine aren't living things, they don't have conscious, so NAP has nothing to do with that.

Are you seriously comparing AnCap to the likes of Christianity?  Have you taken a look at what you worship and give tribute?  Shit, at least the Church gives you the option to donate; the government just tells you to cough up or get out.  You're so deep into statism that you can't even see the connection between government and religion.  If anything AnCap is the exact opposite of any of that; it's like you're trying to imply Atheism is the most Theistic religion of them all--whoops, except it's not even a religion.  Funny how atheists turn up all around the world, despite coming from unique backgrounds, and the want for freedom just so happens to occur the same way.  Can you guess the prerequisites of being a statist?  I'll give you a hint; you're not a statist from birth.

[myrkul]

Dammit I keep getting it wrong! I guess I could never make a truly obedient An-Cap or Libertarian supporter. No space in there for community or non-monetary values.

Uhm... What!?

Well you didn't create the NAP, you're just worshipping it, right? That infinite confidence you seem to have that no matter what situation arises, you can always look up to the NAP for guidance -- that's worship. Sorry.

You miss the point... I suspect deliberately.
You claim "No space in there for community or non-monetary values," which is ridiculous.

One problem with the whole "thou shalt not commit unprovoked acts of aggression against your species" (I forgot how it goes exactly) is that it's SO VAGUE. Thus it does nothing to resolve conflicts. In fact, it would probably make conflicts worse because it would encourage two equally stubborn Libertarians to square-off and avoid compromise because they both think their interpretation of events is the only correct one. How you can not see this?

It's in my signature. And it's hardly "vague." It explicitly states that you - nor any other person - do not have the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. Can't get more specific than that. And no, simply saying "don't hit" does not, itself, resolve conflicts. It does, however, encourage a peaceful resolution to that conflict, since if both parties understand that they do not have the right to initiate force upon the other, they will work towards a resolution that does not involve force.

And if you didn't create the NAP, who did?

It's been formulated by a bunch of people over the years...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#History

Define freedom.

http://bit.ly/10lgKW9

[Mike Christ]

but I'm open to the possibility that "my person" could be a "brain in a vat".

I'm beginning to see the connection here.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

4. Having your soul used in a weird Japanese gore film to power a supermassive zombie radioactive satan-bot.

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. Or how something can be both a zombie and a robot at the same time. Unless it's a cyborg zombie. In which case, that seems extremely inefficient.

[Mike Christ]

4. Having your soul used in a weird Japanese gore film to power a supermassive zombie radioactive satan-bot.

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. Or how something can be both a zombie and a robot at the same time. Unless it's a cyborg zombie. In which case, that seems extremely inefficient.

Well, the radioactivity could be given off from a nuclear engine, which rot the half-man half-robot-robot to the point of zombie...all in all, I still think it's a better source of energy than women's panties.

[myrkul]

I still think it's a better source of energy than women's panties.

Oh, Japan....

[Mike Christ]

I was asking Mike C., and I was looking for a personal interpretation, not C&P.

Sorry; I was typing one up, but noticed myrkul had took it.

My interpretation of freedom is to have as much agency as possible while allowing others an equal amount of agency.  In other words, the role of the state (dominant) and the citizen (submissive) do not coincide with this belief, as the state (and whoever is behind it) will always have more agency than any one individual.

[myrkul]

Dammit I keep getting it wrong! I guess I could never make a truly obedient An-Cap or Libertarian supporter. No space in there for community or non-monetary values.

Uhm... What!?

Well you didn't create the NAP, you're just worshipping it, right? That infinite confidence you seem to have that no matter what situation arises, you can always look up to the NAP for guidance -- that's worship. Sorry.

You miss the point... I suspect deliberately.
You claim "No space in there for community or non-monetary values," which is ridiculous.

What I said is not ridiculous. We've been over this before: your belief in "strong property rights" and your inability to see that as a made-up concept, leaves no room for alternative concepts such as "community". Sure, you pay lip-service to communities and say they are possible and encouraged in an An-Cap world, but property rights are still placed higher up in the hierarchy.

Because voluntary interactions are preferable to coerced ones. If someone does not want to be a part of your community, you can't make him.

Thus, if we were to draw some kind of "Lord of the Rings" like conceptual map of the world (as seen through An-Cap eyes), some obvious conflicts would present themselves:
-communities would be confined within certain boundaries,
-whereas the area that NAP rules over would be boundless.

I don't see a problem with that, and only someone who wanted to force people to be a part of their community would.

Since you don't recognise borders unless they are defined by private property ownership, your NAP would spread everywhere. At least the British Empire seems honest with their label of "Crown Land" and they recognise foreign territories without prejudice against foreign ideas about land ownership. They wouldn't dare sell maps with "East Britain" written on Communist China! Yet that is the kind of thing you obviously envisage with An-Cap.

I envision a map with no names on it.

[myrkul]

I learnt something today.

I seriously doubt that.

What I said is not ridiculous. We've been over this before: your belief in "strong property rights" and your inability to see that as a made-up concept, leaves no room for alternative concepts such as "community". Sure, you pay lip-service to communities and say they are possible and encouraged in an An-Cap world, but property rights are still placed higher up in the hierarchy.

Because voluntary interactions are preferable to coerced ones. If someone does not want to be a part of your community, you can't make him.

Your logic is flawed: you're labelling NAP and An-Cap as equalling non-coercion, but that's false.

Define coercion.

[myrkul]

Your logic is flawed: you're labelling NAP and An-Cap as equalling non-coercion, but that's false.

Define coercion.

http://bit.ly/XFqXW5 

Thank you. I hoped you would do that.

use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance

Now, I would like you to explain how no person having the right to initiate the use of force or threat of force is not non-coercion, given that coercion is the use of force or intimidation (threat of force) to obtain compliance.

[myrkul]

Well?

[kokjo]

Well?

its a violation of the NAP to kick a man when he is down.