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

[Rassah]

Why are you discriminating? What if the government is a group of democratically elected representatives? So a majority is not allowed to determine the NAP? Then who the heck is allowed?! Only devout An-Cap supporters and their crony buddies?

And again you show that you completely fail to grasp what NAP is, and are trying to attack it by making it something it's not. Actually, this statement betrays your rather stern adherence to the idea of a state. Who determines the NAP? Nobody. There is no government that can determine it, no democratically chosen representatives, and no chosen leader. It really is nothing more than "don't aggress against me, but if you do, know that I will retaliate." That is absolutely fucking it. No strange oppressive rules, no questionable bs. Each individual determines if they have been aggresses against, and decides how they wish to retaliate, and others decide whether they agree with them all on their own. And they don't even need to retaliate with violence. It could be as much as, "Hey, that thing you did ruined my yard. Please don't do it again." You yourself practice the idea of NAP all the time with your neighbors and people you live around, when you decide not to randomly punch them in the face, with the understanding that they will beat you up if you do.

Seriously, why is this concept so hard to grasp? (My guess is because you believe that no one is responsible for their own actions, no matter what they may be, and thus a government is not responsible for what it does, either, and is just the natural "outcome" of how things will always end up)

[Rassah]

No, burglary only exists in societies where ownership exists. If things are not owned, they cannot be subjected to your idea of theft.

You must think that an ideal society is one where ownership doesn't exist, everyone shares everything equally, and everyone lives in harmony, working however much they can on want, with the product of their labor going to those who need it.
There is just one problem with your idea, which is a problem that is constant with all things that involve people: assholes. If your utopia comes true, it will only take one single asshole to come up with an ownership idea, and before you know it, he will take ownership of your stuff, and then take ownership of your life. And you'll be powerless to stop him, because in your society, you're supposed to share, so he should be able to take whatever he wants. End result is USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and a slew of cults that ended in murder-suicides.
In AnCap society, there are assholes, too. But they get stopped or shot if they try to take ownership of someone's life.

[Rassah]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

[Mike Christ]

Thus, the problem of drunk driving is not solved by the state, and has not been solved since motor vehicles have been around (nor has the general issue of drunks been solved for millenniums.)  The law is but an expensive band-aid and has no intent to solve a problem.  Discouraging drunk driving with law--even through threats of the death penalty--will not stop drunk driving (see: losing a hand for theft, and yet theft still happens.)

However, the state makes money charging the drunk driver hefty fines, or if it can't monetize, it charges the public for the accident through jails and using tax money to fix whatever damage was caused (e.g. socialism.)  In other words, public loss, private gain, for a system which has no intention of helping the general public.

Lemme know when this sounds appealing to anyone

[Rassah]

Well, you did ask a stupid question. He had a major traffic accident and your first and foremost concern was about payment.

Setting things right.

That's more like it! Depending on the amount of damage/suffering to others, and the various applicable laws (compulsory terms and conditions), "settings things right" could legitimately include putting him behind bars for a while to straighten out his brain.

Why? All he did was destroy "property" concepts. Why not just ignore him and let him continue doing whatever he wants to do? After all, anything he destroys is just property that shouldn't be owned, anyone he kills is just biological property that doesn't belong to anyone, and really, ultimately, driving drunk wasn't his fault to begin with, since it wasn't determined by his choice, anyway.

[myrkul]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

Oh, no, he'd definitely try to put you in a cage for that, but I think that has more to do with his bizarre sexual fetishes than anything else.

[Rassah]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

Oh, no, he'd definitely try to put you in a cage for that, but I think that has more to do with his bizarre sexual fetishes than anything else.

Hey, no such thing as bizzare sexual fetishes. Just rare, unique, and creative ones 

[myrkul]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

Oh, no, he'd definitely try to put you in a cage for that, but I think that has more to do with his bizarre sexual fetishes than anything else.

Hey, no such thing as bizzare sexual fetishes. Just rare, unique, and creative ones 

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you?

[hawkeye]

 
The bit where it's physically impossible to initiate anything because all 'actions' are forced reactions to the past. No forecasting required. Therefore, any kind of 'justice' would really be scapegoating (and therefore coercive) because it fails to take into account all of the historical factors that forced "bad" people to do whatever they did.

As I said, it is quite literally impossible to take into account all the historical factors.  If somebody is malfunctioning, ie they think it is OK to initiate force against others, then it is impossible to know why exactly they think this only that they do.  It is obviously wrong and they must pay restitution every time they do it.  And then at some point before they lose everything they have they may learn that it's wrong.

 
The ways that societies are organised IS the evidence. If there's a government and it administers various 'rights', there's your evidence.

Societies thought human sacrifice was OK too.
Societies thought slavery was OK too.
Societies thought racism was OK too.

Well, because society thought something was OK, I guess then that makes it OK?

Or maybe it actually takes the thinkers in society to think about these things and point them out so society can move beyond primitive, barbaric traditions despite how much some people benefited from them.  Despite the objections of all those who say "but that's just how it is".  All of those things I brought up above were abolished in our deterministic universe, because some humans know what's right and speak up and attempt to reason others out of their nonsense traditions.   Determinism established these things (in primitive times) and it destroyed them (in more modern enlightened times).  Think about that.

Society is trending towards more reasoned, scientific thinking.   It's a 2 step forward, 1 step backward process.  Not saying, "hey, this is how things are this is how things will always be".

Seriously, I don't think you understand the concept of evidence.  You do understand that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, right? 

[kokjo]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

of course i would not let him go... i would be angry and try to control his nexts actions by apply pain to him.

and i have never said otherwise, it was myrkul who said that he did not want to control others. it was a example to show that NAP believer who does not want to control others are actually pacifists(no matter was the call them selves).


you clearly missed the point.

[myrkul]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

of course i would not let him go... i would be angry and try to control his nexts actions by apply pain to him.

and i have never said otherwise, it was myrkul who said that he did not want to control others. it was a example to show that NAP believer who does not want to control others are actually pacifists(no matter was the call them selves).


you clearly missed the point.

Perhaps because the point was wrong.

[hawkeye]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

of course i would not let him go... i would be angry and try to control his nexts actions by apply pain to him.

and i have never said otherwise, it was myrkul who said that he did not want to control others. it was a example to show that NAP believer who does not want to control others are actually pacifists(no matter was the call them selves).


you clearly missed the point.

If I say to someone, you are not allowed to murder me, how am I controlling them?

[kokjo]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?

of course i would not let him go... i would be angry and try to control his nexts actions by apply pain to him.

and i have never said otherwise, it was myrkul who said that he did not want to control others. it was a example to show that NAP believer who does not want to control others are actually pacifists(no matter was the call them selves).


you clearly missed the point.

If I say to someone, you are not allowed to murder me, how am I controlling them?

the NAP says no such thing.

[hawkeye]

Is murder not an initiation of force?

[kokjo]

Is murder not an initiation of force?

but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself).

The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation.

[Stardust]

I agree in theory with libertarianism and NAP. But many things worry me. I find that just like Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntarysm, and The Zeitgeist Movement ignore human nature. By being focused on their perceived evils (lack of free market for An-Cap/Vol and money for Zeitgeist), they could repeat the failure of Communism, which was focused on class warfare. Many things look perfect on paper as was Marx's manifesto, but when implemented in real life can have horrible results.

Most humans are selfish, lazy, and greedy. A few are psychopaths which tend to end a the top of governments and other organizations.

Communities, religions, and corporations can be far more oppressive than government. You can say that one should choose their community careful or leave, but you can't choose where you are born and you can't leave without money or resources (or without trespassing in a fully privatized world).

Even today people are far more scammed/abused of by businesses, small businesses, and religions. There is nothing to stop an alliance between those entities in an An-Cap world. We have enough problems with many corporations/religions corrupting governments.

Also, I don't even want to imagine the hassle of having to pay for toll roads, private security, water, sewer system, etc.

But I don't like the status quo either, governments are becoming more authoritarian by day, and individual freedom vanishes. The Left and Right are becoming more and more idiocratic. I also believe there is a false dichotomy between individual freedom and socialism.

So far I can't find a political platform/movement that matches. I am attracted by many of the ideas from the Zeitgeist videos, but also see many faults, and at times seems idiocratic (perhaps because it was targeted at an American audience?).

[Stardust]

Is murder not an initiation of force?

but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself).

The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation.

But why is that wrong? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, is the only true justice (except when it is applied collectively).

[hawkeye]

Is murder not an initiation of force?

but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself).

The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation.

If you are saying it is not enforced from the top down you are correct.  It is a general principle.  A truth.   Nobody has the right to interfere with someone's else's life.

Now obviously not everyone in a free society is going to adhere to this which is why security providers will still be in demand by the market.  Just there will be competition in geographical areas rather than the coercive, controlling monopolies that we currently have which there is no evidence they have the rights to do what they claim to be able to do.

[kokjo]

I agree in theory with libertarianism and NAP. But many things worry me. I find that just like Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntarysm, and The Zeitgeist Movement ignore human nature. By being focused on their perceived evils (lack of free market for An-Cap/Vol and money for Zeitgeist), they could repeat the failure of Communism, which was focused on class warfare. Many things look perfect on paper as was Marx's manifesto, but when implemented in real life can have horrible results.

... and this is why i argue that it works pretty good right now, so why not just continue with that evil state?

Is murder not an initiation of force?

but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself).

The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation.

But why is that wrong? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, is the only true justice (except when it is applied collectively).

because the options with NAP is:
a) allow murder.
b) push stuff onto others.

Im not that saying a statist society would be murder free, just that it would not be allowed. Im perfectly fine with pushing stuff onto other.

[kokjo]

Is murder not an initiation of force?

but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself).

The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation.

If you are saying it is not enforced from the top down you are correct.  It is a general principle.  A truth.   Nobody has the right to interfere with someone's else's life.

Now obviously not everyone in a free society is going to adhere to this which is why security providers will still be in demand by the market.  Just there will be competition in geographical areas rather than the coercive, controlling monopolies that we currently have which there is no evidence they have the rights to do what they claim to be able to do.

see? you are pushing stuff onto other, which you said that you would not.