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

[myrkul]

Well?

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

So it is. 

I'll take this as admitting defeat, and almost certainly the closest I'm going to get to blablahblah admitting defeat.

[kokjo]

Expected response from myrkul:

oh no no no, you misunderstood: the NAP is voluntary.

[hawkeye]

These are all good reasons why in the real world, people just write laws and create governments to administer them. Laws merely restrict what people are allowed to do, not what they're allowed to think. Would people who are philosophically opposed to the NAP get equal treatment under it? Oops! No they would not. They have no right to believe in some alternative world with e.g.: zero private property because, quite simply the Libertarian majority would lynch them (or at least keep threatening the dissidents with smaller punishments until they go into hiding or start obediently conforming!).

Why do you think that you (or anyone) has the authority to right a law that binds another person whether they like it or not?   I'd like to see the actual physical proof that this right exists.  was it given to you by God?   Because if it doesn't exist then you have a case of fraud on your hands in regards to what the people who call themselves governments are doing.  Don't forget, "government" is just a label.  It doesn't have any magical properties.  What you do have is a group of people telling other people what they can and can't do, right down to what they put in their bodies.  Look for proof of their rights to do this and you don't find anything.

We are all born equal.  That's why the NAP makes sense.  No-one has the right to threaten another person.  And like I said before, if you think there is some right that some people have to threaten others, then Prove it!

[hawkeye]

These are all good reasons why in the real world, people just write laws and create governments to administer them. Laws merely restrict what people are allowed to do, not what they're allowed to think. Would people who are philosophically opposed to the NAP get equal treatment under it? Oops! No they would not. They have no right to believe in some alternative world with e.g.: zero private property because, quite simply the Libertarian majority would lynch them (or at least keep threatening the dissidents with smaller punishments until they go into hiding or start obediently conforming!).

Why do you think that you (or anyone) has the authority to right a law an arrogantly self-styled "non-aggression" principle/dogma that binds another person whether they like it or not?   I'd like to see the actual physical proof that this right exists.  was it given to you by God?   Because if it doesn't exist then you have a case of fraud on your hands in regards to what the people who call themselves Libertarians/An-Cap are doing.  Don't forget, Libertarian/An-Cap is just a label.  It doesn't have any magical properties.  What you do have is a group of people telling other people what they can and can't do, right down to what they put in their bodies.  Look for proof of their rights to do this and you don't find anything.

We are all born equal.  That's why the NAP makes no sense.  No-one has the right to threaten another person.  And like I said before, if you think there is some right that some people have to threaten others, then Prove it!

FTFY

Of course AnCap/Libertarian are just labels.  What is your point?

And how am I telling you what you can and can't do beyond saying you aren't allowed to threaten  people?

If you think you have a right to threaten other people, then prove it.  Why is it so hard?

[myrkul]

<snip a bunch of bullshit that has nothing to do with anything>

Still didn't come close to answering - or even addressing - my question to you:

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.

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

Translation: a bunch of stoners were unhappy with "the whole world" and all its laws, so they wrote their own airy-fairy peace-loving manuscript. But of course that's not law because, well, there's not enough support for it (and rightly so because as I explained, it would be unusable in the real world).

I see. So, Epicurus was just a "stoner"?

"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."

As was John Locke?

"Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

And Thomas Jefferson?

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

As you said, Lol.

[kokjo]

<snip a bunch of bullshit that has nothing to do with anything>

Still didn't come close to answering - or even addressing - my question to you:

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.

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

Translation: a bunch of stoners were unhappy with "the whole world" and all its laws, so they wrote their own airy-fairy peace-loving manuscript. But of course that's not law because, well, there's not enough support for it (and rightly so because as I explained, it would be unusable in the real world).

I see. So, Epicurus was just a "stoner"?

"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."

As was John Locke?

"Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

And Thomas Jefferson?

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

As you said, Lol.

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

[myrkul]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

[kokjo]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot!

[myrkul]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot!

Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words.

Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich!

[kokjo]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot!

Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words.

Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich!

Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice".

"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx

"Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains." - Karl Marx

you people really needs to look at the world from another perspective.

[myrkul]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot!

Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words.

Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich!

Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice".

Funny that you should say that with such certainty...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell

[kokjo]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot!

Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words.

Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich!

Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice".

Funny that you should say that with such certainty...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell

funny, i see this whole thread as you fanatically sticking to the NAP, while i question its consistency.
I don't know that an An-Cap society would work, but you are convinced that its best thing in the world.
I don't know if a communistic society would work, but you don't even want to think about it. You fear it.

My guess is that a communistic society would work better then a An-Cap one.

[myrkul]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot!

Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words.

Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich!

Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice".

Funny that you should say that with such certainty...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell

funny, i see this whole thread as you fanatically sticking to the NAP, while i question its consistency.

Then I present to you the same question that wawahwah avoided:

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.

I don't know that an An-Cap society would work, but you are convinced that its best thing in the world.
I don't know if a communistic society would work, but you don't even want to think about it. You fear it.

My guess is that a communistic society would work better then a An-Cap one.

I don't know that an AnCap society would work, but I'm pretty sure it would work better than anything tried so far.
I don't know if a communistic society would work, but every time something like it has been tried, it ended up killing a lot of people. I don't fear it, I hate it.

My guess is that an AnCap society would work better than a communistic one. I'm willing to put them up against each other, though, without a State to enforce either one. Are you?

[kokjo]

quoting old dead persons are not good arguments.

Simply saying something is not a good argument is not a good argument.

Just saying what other people said shows lack of intelligence. Parrot!

Ahh, but I didn't just parrot it. My signature shows my own formulation of the NAP. It is similar to the way others have said it, but it is not simply a repetition of other people's words.

Failing to recognize the wisdom of previous speakers shows a lack of intelligence. Ostrich!

Jefferson and Locke are wrong, the first one is babbling about something called "natural justice".

Funny that you should say that with such certainty...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell

funny, i see this whole thread as you fanatically sticking to the NAP, while i question its consistency.

Then I present to you the same question that wawahwah avoided:

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.

i dont know. this is not where the inconsistency lies. pointing out where NAP works great does not sheds light on the part where it does not work well.

I don't know that an An-Cap society would work, but you are convinced that its best thing in the world.
I don't know if a communistic society would work, but you don't even want to think about it. You fear it.

My guess is that a communistic society would work better then a An-Cap one.

I don't know that an AnCap society would work, but I'm pretty sure it would work better than anything tried so far.
I don't know if a communistic society would work, but every time something like it has been tried, it ended up killing a lot of people. I don't fear it, I hate it.

My guess is that an AnCap society would work better than a communistic one. I'm willing to put them up against each other, though, without a State to enforce either one. Are you?

a) im just pointing out that, just as the fools that Russell talk about, you are "pretty sure".
b) and you answer your question: yes lets compare them.

[myrkul]

i dont know. this is not where the inconsistency lies. pointing out where NAP works great does not sheds light on the part where it does not work well.

Then, where is it inconsistent?

a) im just pointing out that, just as the fools that Russell talk about, you are "pretty sure".
b) and you answer your question: yes lets compare them.

a) "Pretty sure" is not "certain," whereas saying "You are WRONG," is.
b) Excellent, so you will work with me to abolish the state, so that we can set our two societies side by side without interference?

[kokjo]

i dont know. this is not where the inconsistency lies. pointing out where NAP works great does not sheds light on the part where it does not work well.

Then, where is it inconsistent?

If declaration of NAP can be considered an act of aggression. which i say it can, and you say it can't. Are we not done with this discussion yet? we are clearly not gonna agree on this.

a) im just pointing out that, just as the fools that Russell talk about, you are "pretty sure".
b) and you answer your question: yes lets compare them.

a) "Pretty sure" is not "certain," whereas saying "You are WRONG," is.
b) Excellent, so you will work with me to abolish the state, so that we can set our two societies side by side without interference?

no, im happy with the state. thank you.

but lets consider the a hypothetical world where there are no states.

an an-cap society would lead to the abuse of the weakest, because the weakest are easy to trick, manipulate, and would therefor be an easy victim of an-cap "fair game". Your turn.

[myrkul]

i dont know. this is not where the inconsistency lies. pointing out where NAP works great does not sheds light on the part where it does not work well.

Then, where is it inconsistent?

If declaration of NAP can be considered an act of aggression. which i say it can, and you say it can't. Are we not done with this discussion yet? we are clearly not gonna agree on this.

Yes, I thought I had explained it in terms even a relativist like yourself could grasp. By saying that no man has the right to initiate the use of force, I am stating that I believe no man (myself included) has the right to throw the first punch. By throwing the first punch, the aggressor is stating (by his actions) that he believes that every man (himself included) has that right. By responding to force with force, I am therefore acting within my own belief system (responding is, by definition, not initiating) and within his (all men, after all, have the right to use violence).

By saying that no man has the right to initiate the threat of force, I am stating that I believe no man (myself included) has the right to threaten to throw the first punch. By threatening to throw the first punch, the aggressor is stating (by his actions) that he believes that every man (himself included) has that right. By responding to the threat of force with the threat of force, I am therefore acting within my own belief system (responding is, by definition, not initiating) and within his (all men, after all, have the right to threaten violence).

So where am I being inconsistent?

and [to] answer your question: yes lets compare them.

Excellent, so you will work with me to abolish the state, so that we can set our two societies side by side without interference?

no, im happy with the state. thank you.

So you're not willing to try them out, side by side. so sad.

[kokjo]

and [to] answer your question: yes lets compare them.

Excellent, so you will work with me to abolish the state, so that we can set our two societies side by side without interference?

no, im happy with the state. thank you.

So you're not willing to try them out, side by side. so sad.

yeah man, just ignore the rest of my post.

[myrkul]

yeah man, just ignore the rest of my post.

I could say the same thing....

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Stateists bug me, and so do those who think that IP rights don't exist. Think, if one spends a year, a decade, developing a nice widget, does anyone who gets their hands on the design deserve the profit?  Could the movie "Star Wars" ever have existed if anyone could just take it and display it?  David Friedman has answers to these questions in his book "The Machinery of Freedom", much of which is on youtube.