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

[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.

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

What am I pushing?

[Stardust]

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

I'm not sure it works pretty good right now, but it also depends where you live (I don't know much about Denmark).

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.

I have no problem with the murder of a murderer except if s/he is the murderer of a murderer.

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.

How is this different from the Yakuza, Mafia, Islamic Courts, or other non-governmental organizations that provide "security" to the locals?

What will prevent those security providers from imposing their morals on the locals? What will prevent them from becoming warlords?

[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.

What am I pushing?

[hawkeye]

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.

The NAP is just a principle that we are trying to help people understand.  Most people accept it already to some degree.    It's not being forced on anyone.

The reality is that the more people that accept the less resources will need to be expended on security.   It's not being pushed on you, but most people in general I think would not find it acceptable for you to violate it, if only for the reason that they don't want someone else to violate them with impunity.

In a free society obviously there will be people who do not adhere to these principles.  In such a society, I personally, and I imagine many others would want to hire some kind of security to generally keep me safe from such people.  Nothing is being forced here.  I want security.  And someone wants to provide me with security for a price.  No-ones rights are being violated here, nothing is being pushed on anyone.

You can go without a security provider.  But your life would probably be more difficult.  Just as most people would find life more difficult if they didn't have an electricity provider or a water provider, etc...  

[hawkeye]

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.

How is this different from the Yakuza, Mafia, Islamic Courts, or other non-governmental organizations that provide "security" to the locals?

What will prevent those security providers from imposing their morals on the locals? What will prevent them from becoming warlords?

They force security on them.  There's a difference.  Just like the "government" forces it's security upon people.

In the free society there will be competition and contracts and arbitration between security providers.  Why would one try to take over and become a government?  The risks would be huge and why bother when you are making good profits?   Once people have got used to the idea of no government I highly doubt they will want to go back.

[Stardust]

They force security on them.  There's a difference.  Just like the "government" forces it's security upon people.

Governments (with the exceptions of monarchies and theocracies) enforce security with the consent of the (or hired by the) people (of course most of the time it's a lie). So should the locals, barring a conspiracy, choose anarchy, that government has no longer a right to rule.

In the free society there will be competition and contracts and arbitration between security providers.  Why would one try to take over and become a government?  The risks would be huge and why bother when you are making good profits?   Once people have got used to the idea of no government I highly doubt they will want to go back.

Because for many profit is not everything, the lust for power and religion can also be a great motivator. Some people just want to have slaves or impose on others how to live. And if they fight the government now, those private security providers will be a lesser challenge.

[hawkeye]

Governments (with the exceptions of monarchies and theocracies) enforce security with the consent of the (or hired by the) people (of course most of the time it's a lie). So should the locals, barring a conspiracy, choose anarchy, that government has no longer a right to rule.

As you say the consent is a lie.  And therefore the people calling themselves govt do not have a right to rule.

In the free society there will be competition and contracts and arbitration between security providers.  Why would one try to take over and become a government?  The risks would be huge and why bother when you are making good profits?   Once people have got used to the idea of no government I highly doubt they will want to go back.

Because for many profit is not everything, the lust for power and religion can also be a great motivator. Some people just want to have slaves or impose on others how to live. And if they fight the government now, those private security providers will be a lesser challenge.

How easy is it to subdue an urban, armed population?  The most powerful govt the world has ever seen can't seem to do it effectively in Iraq, for example.

No doubt there are always going to be people lusting for power, but the only way that it works now is because people have been trained over centuries, particularly through the church and the public school system to accept the idea of government.  It needs to be indoctrinated in for a majority to accept it.  Without that indoctrination being present, I have serious doubts as to whether a modern, educated population would accept a new government after not having one at all.

[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.

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

the NAP says no such thing.

Clearly, you cannot read.

"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

Murder is the use of force to take a life. Surely you would agree with that? The NAP states that no person has the right to initiate the use of force. In this specific case, it can be read as:

"No person has the right to murder someone else unless that person is trying to murder someone."

But it's much simpler to just say, "You are not allowed to murder me."

[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?

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.

I think you're the one who missed the point. What you describes as your reaction to being kicked in the nuts is NAP. Whom did you need to control or not control you to make you decide that it's best to retaliate if kicked in the nuts?
I am fairly convinced both of you guys have a totally skewed and messed up idea of what you think NAP is.

[Rassah]

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.

What am I pushing?

Can you please explain to me, how am I forcing you, right at this very moment by telling you "you are free to leave your room if you wish, and I have no intentions of stopping you?" By your logic, me saying this is forcing something on you. How?

[Rassah]

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.

In statist society, murder is allowed, too. No one will stop you from murdering, but you will just get punished for it afterwards. And you will also get stuff pushed on you, like people telling you "don't murder." So what is the difference, other than who's telling you not to murder and punishing you if you do?

[kokjo]

"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

This is what the NAP says.

"No person has the right to murder someone else unless that person is trying to murder someone."

This is not what the NAP says(even in the specific case).


You are assuming that both the aggressor and the aggressee is accepting the NAP, which i tell you: they are not.

In statist society, murder is allowed, too.

yes, under certain circumstances.

[myrkul]

"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

This is what the NAP says.

"No person has the right to murder someone else unless that person is trying to murder someone."

This is not what the NAP says(even in the specific case).

Actually, you're right. It might be better stated:
"No person has the right to kill someone else unless that person is trying to murder someone."
Since "kill" is the morally neutral term, while murder is the one denoting an aggressive action.

You are assuming that both the aggressor and the aggressee is accepting the NAP, which i tell you: they are not.

Of course they're not. It doesn't matter if the person aggressing accepts the NAP or not. He's in violation of it. You can't fly by not accepting gravity, and you can't claim the right to murder someone by not accepting the NAP.

[Rassah]

"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

This is what the NAP says.

"No person has the right to murder someone else unless that person is trying to murder someone."

This is not what the NAP says(even in the specific case).


You are assuming that both the aggressor and the aggressee is accepting the NAP, which i tell you: they are not.

It doesn't really matter if someone is not accepting the NAP if they live in a NAP society. Just as it doesn't matter if the person doesn't accept laws against murder in a statist society. They will attempt to murder regardless of the laws/rules, so we can ignore this.
For the rest, let's play out the scenario, assuming we live in a NAP society. Remember, NAP is just an agreement, not a set of laws imposed by any single body. So...
You see someone who doesn't care about what is right, threatening to murder someone else (initiating aggression). The victim is powerless to do anything. So, you step in and stop the aggressor, either by subduing them, or by killing them first. It was the initial wannabe murderer that initiated the aggression, not you. Since there are no specified laws, what do you suppose other people around you will do? Chances are, they will agree with your action, and applaud you for coming to the rescue of the victim. Again, there are no laws or rules regarding this, just general agreement, so what will result is literally what you believe others will likely do. Since people are generally good and fair, the likely outcome will be that as well.
Now, what do you think will be the outcome in that exact same scenario in a statist society? There are specific laws that state that only the police, or other people with power, are allowed to defend and kill. So, after you step in to protect the victim, even if everyone around you agreed that what you did was right and necessary, you still broke the law, and the first thing that will happen is that you will be arrested. Afterwards, you will be investigated, and if lucky, released with a warning. If unlucky, you'all be charged with manslaughter or murder.
Tell me I'm wrong.

In statist society, murder is allowed, too.

yes, under certain circumstances.

No, under all circumstances. Murderers can, will, and have murdered, regardless of what laws or NAPs or general agreements there are. Laws don't protect from psychopaths. That's why we have weapons.

[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.

So what? If you believe that the world is deterministic, then you're obliged to accept that all actions are inevitable and therefore there's no such thing as 'aggression'. It doesn't matter if you don't know all the details.

Does that make murder OK?  Do we say that if someone murders someone else, "well, it was going to happen anyway" and shrug our shoulders?  If so why and if not why not?  Your answer will be quite illuminating I'm sure.

[kokjo]

 
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.

So what? If you believe that the world is deterministic, then you're obliged to accept that all actions are inevitable and therefore there's no such thing as 'aggression'. It doesn't matter if you don't know all the details.

Does that make murder OK?  Do we say that if someone murders someone else, "well, it was going to happen anyway" and shrug our shoulders?  If so why and if not why not?  Your answer will be quite illuminating I'm sure.

do you realize that your shoulder shrugging is also a part of determinism?

[myrkul]

 
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.

So what? If you believe that the world is deterministic, then you're obliged to accept that all actions are inevitable and therefore there's no such thing as 'aggression'. It doesn't matter if you don't know all the details.

Does that make murder OK?  Do we say that if someone murders someone else, "well, it was going to happen anyway" and shrug our shoulders?  If so why and if not why not?  Your answer will be quite illuminating I'm sure.

do you realize that your shoulder shrugging is also a part of determinism?

Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.

[kokjo]

 
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.

So what? If you believe that the world is deterministic, then you're obliged to accept that all actions are inevitable and therefore there's no such thing as 'aggression'. It doesn't matter if you don't know all the details.

Does that make murder OK?  Do we say that if someone murders someone else, "well, it was going to happen anyway" and shrug our shoulders?  If so why and if not why not?  Your answer will be quite illuminating I'm sure.

do you realize that your shoulder shrugging is also a part of determinism?

Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.

yes, but you can watch and enjoy.

[myrkul]

Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.

yes, but you can watch and enjoy.

Which would require that I enjoy what I'm seeing. Since I don't, that presents a problem.

[kokjo]

Why I'm not a determinist. If there's no way to change the future, there's no point in trying.

yes, but you can watch and enjoy.

Which would require that I enjoy what I'm seeing. Since I don't, that presents a problem.

so you say that you lack the ability to enjoy things? or are you saying that determinism does not allow you to enjoy things?