How to run an Anarchy

[vector76]

You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, and still have a meaningful discussion.  You could argue that it is improperly named, but you can't redefine natural law to mean something else and then argue against that other thing which is not what people are calling natural law.

AyeYo is effectively saying, "What you are calling 'rights' I interpret as unicorns, and unicorns do not exist!  Or at least the burden of proof is on you to show that unicorns exist."

If you want to argue that might makes right, you are free to argue that, but please don't call it natural law or unicorns or some other thing which does not mean what you want it to mean, even if you pay it extra.

As already stated, I'm well aware of the concept of natural rights.  As I just pointed out in the last post, the concept is extremely flawed for multiple reasons.  

It's accepted by many people because on the surface it appears reasonable - most European and Asian based societies seem to share the same ideas of morality in spite of their separate origins.  However, when you start to examine the practices of native societies in other areas, what appeared to be the obvious truth of natural rights suddenly vanishes.

Here's is the bottom line, as it has always been:

The truth of natural rights is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that libertarianism FORCES those that do not agree with it 100% to nevertheless abide by its rules.  You attempt to justify this by saying it's based on some "natural law" and "natural rights", but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you, in fact most don't.  No matter how you want to spin your belief system, no matter how you redefine words, no matter how arbitrary you are with your application of standards, the bottom line will always remain the same: your belief system is hypocritical because it is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggressive against those that do not subscribe to it.

FINALLY, at least now you are talking about the same thing.  The 'flaws' you think you pointed out earlier were about something else.

It is aggressive against those who are aggressive, regardless of whether or not they subscribe to any belief system.  It only forces those who attempt to force.  It does not force people to agree.

Let's say, because of your differing belief system, you redefine 'aggression' to exclude X, while anarchists include X as being aggressive.  If you then engage in X, which is nonaggressive-according-to-AyeYo, then anarchists have no problem engaging in X against you also.  You cannot then switch and complain about aggression being used against you, because you have said X is not aggressive.

[1714960596]

1714960596

[1714960596]

1714960596

[1714960596]

1714960596

[JA37]

No, I owe the forced bystander my life. The 'evil' one committed an aggressive act against the person to whom I owe my life, so of course I would like to see that he is justly compensated.

The forced bystander wouldn't have saved you. Had it not been for the "evil" one, you would be dead.  HE saved your life. HIS actions rescued you. Yes, he did so by forcing another, but the intent was to save a life. Didn't you say that intent matters not too long ago? Perhaps the "evil" one couldn't swim, so he took the second best option.

You're praising someone who would have let you die, while punishing the one who saved you. While I don't object to you praising the person who did the actual rescue, vilifying the facilitator isn't right.

[vector76]

No, I owe the forced bystander my life. The 'evil' one committed an aggressive act against the person to whom I owe my life, so of course I would like to see that he is justly compensated.

The forced bystander wouldn't have saved you. Had it not been for the "evil" one, you would be dead.  HE saved your life. HIS actions rescued you. Yes, he did so by forcing another, but the intent was to save a life. Didn't you say that intent matters not too long ago? Perhaps the "evil" one couldn't swim, so he took the second best option.

You're praising someone who would have let you die, while punishing the one who saved you. While I don't object to you praising the person who did the actual rescue, vilifying the facilitator isn't right.

Arguing that the ends justify the means is a very dangerous thing.  Even if it seems correct in one very specific case, the broader principle leads to tremendous injustice and misery and suffering.

So even if the force seems valid in this context, it is irrelevant because it fails when generalized.

[myrkul]

No, I owe the forced bystander my life. The 'evil' one committed an aggressive act against the person to whom I owe my life, so of course I would like to see that he is justly compensated.

The forced bystander wouldn't have saved you. Had it not been for the "evil" one, you would be dead.  HE saved your life. HIS actions rescued you. Yes, he did so by forcing another, but the intent was to save a life. Didn't you say that intent matters not too long ago? Perhaps the "evil" one couldn't swim, so he took the second best option.

You're praising someone who would have let you die, while punishing the one who saved you. While I don't object to you praising the person who did the actual rescue, vilifying the facilitator isn't right.

There are better ways to 'facilitate' than with force. Offering compensation, for instance. I'm not 'vilifying' the facilitator, it's his methods I take issue with. pulling a gun is not the 'second best' option, it's way down the list.

[JA37]

There are better ways to 'facilitate' than with force. Offering compensation, for instance. I'm not 'vilifying' the facilitator, it's his methods I take issue with. pulling a gun is not the 'second best' option, it's way down the list.

What is it that AnCaps use to say about incentives? That incentives influences actions? So in your society, if I need to resort to force to help someone, I'll be punished for it. Isn't that an incentive for people NOT to help?

Thanks, but your system sucks compared to the current one, where I can break laws to assist someone, as long as those actions are justifiable. At least in this scenario we just discussed. Perhaps we can find some other area where AnCap is actually better than the current system. I'm sure there are some.

[JA37]

Arguing that the ends justify the means is a very dangerous thing.  Even if it seems correct in one very specific case, the broader principle leads to tremendous injustice and misery and suffering.

So even if the force seems valid in this context, it is irrelevant because it fails when generalized.

I agree that the end doesn't always justify the means. But sometimes it does.
The key is to find a balance. The world isn't as black and white as people here tend to think.

[MoonShadow]

Arguing that the ends justify the means is a very dangerous thing.  Even if it seems correct in one very specific case, the broader principle leads to tremendous injustice and misery and suffering.

So even if the force seems valid in this context, it is irrelevant because it fails when generalized.

I agree that the end doesn't always justify the means. But sometimes it does.
The key is to find a balance. The world isn't as black and white as people here tend to think.

People here don't think that the world is as black and white as others tend it think, either.  It's a bit difficult to define the nuances of every philosophical construct in a forum post.

[myrkul]

There are better ways to 'facilitate' than with force. Offering compensation, for instance. I'm not 'vilifying' the facilitator, it's his methods I take issue with. pulling a gun is not the 'second best' option, it's way down the list.

What is it that AnCaps use to say about incentives? That incentives influences actions? So in your society, if I need to resort to force to help someone, I'll be punished for it. Isn't that an incentive for people NOT to help?

Thanks, but your system sucks compared to the current one, where I can break laws to assist someone, as long as those actions are justifiable. At least in this scenario we just discussed. Perhaps we can find some other area where AnCap is actually better than the current system. I'm sure there are some.

Incentives do indeed influence actions. Maybe you should offer some other incentive to the bystander other than not dying? Terror tactics aren't acceptable, no matter the cause.

[JA37]

Incentives do indeed influence actions. Maybe you should offer some other incentive to the bystander other than not dying? Terror tactics aren't acceptable, no matter the cause.

Oh how wonderful to live in your simple world.

"Yes sir, I can see that you're drowning. No sir, I can't help you myself, and the man with the rescue equipment over there doesn't want to help. Well, he has offered to provide assistance for the fee of one million dollars, but I don't have that kind of money. Well, I could force him to help you, I have the means to do that, but it would go against the NAP. Yes sir, I suppose you'll die. But you'll die knowing that nobody's rights were violated. I hope you can find comfort in that. Enjoy the rest of your life sir, however brief it may be."

Saving a life is terror now? What school did you attend? The Orwell school of linguistics?  

[myrkul]

Saving a life is terror now? What school did you attend? The Orwell school of linguistics?  

No, pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to do something is terror.

Rest assured I would gladly go into debt to a rescuer who would only rescue me for a fee.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Saving a life is terror now? What school did you attend? The Orwell school of linguistics?  

No, pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to do something is terror.

Rest assured I would gladly go into debt to a rescuer who would only rescue me for a fee.

Good point.  Time to setup a bounty.  I pledge that I will pay 10 bitcoins to anyone who rescues me/saves my life in a life-or-death situation.

[JA37]

No, pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to do something is terror.

Rest assured I would gladly go into debt to a rescuer who would only rescue me for a fee.

Intent is key. Your definition certainly isn't the common definition btw.

So, is there an upper limit as to how much debt you'd go into to be rescued form a life threatening situation?

[AyeYo]

You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, and still have a meaningful discussion.  You could argue that it is improperly named, but you can't redefine natural law to mean something else and then argue against that other thing which is not what people are calling natural law.

AyeYo is effectively saying, "What you are calling 'rights' I interpret as unicorns, and unicorns do not exist!  Or at least the burden of proof is on you to show that unicorns exist."

If you want to argue that might makes right, you are free to argue that, but please don't call it natural law or unicorns or some other thing which does not mean what you want it to mean, even if you pay it extra.

As already stated, I'm well aware of the concept of natural rights.  As I just pointed out in the last post, the concept is extremely flawed for multiple reasons.  

It's accepted by many people because on the surface it appears reasonable - most European and Asian based societies seem to share the same ideas of morality in spite of their separate origins.  However, when you start to examine the practices of native societies in other areas, what appeared to be the obvious truth of natural rights suddenly vanishes.

Here's is the bottom line, as it has always been:

The truth of natural rights is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that libertarianism FORCES those that do not agree with it 100% to nevertheless abide by its rules.  You attempt to justify this by saying it's based on some "natural law" and "natural rights", but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you, in fact most don't.  No matter how you want to spin your belief system, no matter how you redefine words, no matter how arbitrary you are with your application of standards, the bottom line will always remain the same: your belief system is hypocritical because it is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggressive against those that do not subscribe to it.

FINALLY, at least now you are talking about the same thing.  The 'flaws' you think you pointed out earlier were about something else.

It is aggressive against those who are aggressive, regardless of whether or not they subscribe to any belief system.  It only forces those who attempt to force.  It does not force people to agree.

Let's say, because of your differing belief system, you redefine 'aggression' to exclude X, while anarchists include X as being aggressive.  If you then engage in X, which is nonaggressive-according-to-AyeYo, then anarchists have no problem engaging in X against you also.  You cannot then switch and complain about aggression being used against you, because you have said X is not aggressive.

NONE irrelevant, attempted (and failed) logic argument changes anything I said.  Let me quote it again:

No matter how you want to spin your belief system, no matter how you redefine words, no matter how arbitrary you are with your application of standards, the bottom line will always remain the same: your belief system is hypocritical because it is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggressive against those that do not subscribe to it.

It's a simple fact because it is true of ANY and ALL belief systems that exist in a world were not everyone is 100% of the same opinion.  There is no way around it, so a belief system supposedly based on non-aggression is flawed and self-contradictory from the very start.

[vector76]

Stating something twice does not make it any less incorrect.

It is true that belief systems exist in a world were not everyone is 100% of the same opinion.  Non-aggression allows these to coexist as long as they don't use force against each other.  It is not based on absolute absence of aggression, it is based on the minimum possible aggression, and only in specific limited circumstances.  There is nothing self-contradictory about that.

If you held non-aggression to mean the absolute absence of force in any circumstance, then you would be right about self-contradiction.  And you would also have your head up your ass.

[AyeYo]

Stating something twice does not make it any less incorrect.

It is true that belief systems exist in a world were not everyone is 100% of the same opinion.  Non-aggression allows these to coexist as long as they don't use force against each other.  It is not based on absolute absence of aggression, it is based on the minimum possible aggression, and only in specific limited circumstances.  There is nothing self-contradictory about that.

NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT STANDARD.  NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH HOW YOU APPLY IT.

What will it take for you to be able to wrap your mind around that?

[vector76]

Stating something twice does not make it any less incorrect.

It is true that belief systems exist in a world were not everyone is 100% of the same opinion.  Non-aggression allows these to coexist as long as they don't use force against each other.  It is not based on absolute absence of aggression, it is based on the minimum possible aggression, and only in specific limited circumstances.  There is nothing self-contradictory about that.

NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT STANDARD.  NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH HOW YOU APPLY IT.

What will it take for you to be able to wrap your mind around that?

I fully understand and I AGREE that not everyone agrees on the standard or how it is applied.

I never said everyone agrees.  I never said it required agreement.  I am saying that it is not self-contradictory.

Does non-contradiction require complete agreement in AyeYo's little universe?  That would be a convenient way for everyone who disagrees with you to be self-contradictory.

[myrkul]

No, pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to do something is terror.

Rest assured I would gladly go into debt to a rescuer who would only rescue me for a fee.

Intent is key. Your definition certainly isn't the common definition btw.

So, is there an upper limit as to how much debt you'd go into to be rescued form a life threatening situation?

ter·ror·ism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Hmm. Seems to match.

As to the upper limit, a standard fee/reward would develop. em3rgentOrdr suggests 10BTC. At the moment, this would break me, (as far as my BTC savings) but I'd gladly pay it.

[AyeYo]

Stating something twice does not make it any less incorrect.

It is true that belief systems exist in a world were not everyone is 100% of the same opinion.  Non-aggression allows these to coexist as long as they don't use force against each other.  It is not based on absolute absence of aggression, it is based on the minimum possible aggression, and only in specific limited circumstances.  There is nothing self-contradictory about that.

NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT STANDARD.  NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH HOW YOU APPLY IT.

What will it take for you to be able to wrap your mind around that?

I fully understand and I AGREE that not everyone agrees on the standard or how it is applied.

I never said everyone agrees.  I never said it required agreement.  I am saying that it is not self-contradictory.

Does non-contradiction require complete agreement in AyeYo's little universe?  That would be a convenient way for everyone who disagrees with you to be self-contradictory.

Non-contradiction requires that your system supposedly based on non-aggression not be inherently aggressive.  No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it.  It's as simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Stating something twice does not make it any less incorrect.

It is true that belief systems exist in a world were not everyone is 100% of the same opinion.  Non-aggression allows these to coexist as long as they don't use force against each other.  It is not based on absolute absence of aggression, it is based on the minimum possible aggression, and only in specific limited circumstances.  There is nothing self-contradictory about that.

NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT STANDARD.  NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH HOW YOU APPLY IT.

What will it take for you to be able to wrap your mind around that?

I fully understand and I AGREE that not everyone agrees on the standard or how it is applied.

I never said everyone agrees.  I never said it required agreement.  I am saying that it is not self-contradictory.

Does non-contradiction require complete agreement in AyeYo's little universe?  That would be a convenient way for everyone who disagrees with you to be self-contradictory.

Non-contradiction requires that your system supposedly based on non-aggression not be inherently aggressive.  No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it.  It's as simple as that.

Oh, what a shame. We're going to have to force AyeYo to stop stealing and murdering people in the name of his whims and desires. How oppressive!

[vector76]

No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it.  It's as simple as that.

A system can be non-aggressive against those who are non-aggressive, and that is all that NAP claims.  There is no contradiction unless you misconstrue it to mean the complete absence of aggression under any circumstances, which nobody ever suggested.