|
The Script
|
 |
July 01, 2011, 08:16:19 PM |
|
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. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. I've been tracking most of your arguments so far, and agree with some of your points. Libertarianism will not be a utopia and there will be flaws and some really hard decisions/tough calls. But we believe it will be a much better, more fair and prosperous system than the current one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:22:39 PM |
|
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. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"? I LOVE these arbitrary defintions! I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence. That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system! You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny. |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:28:49 PM |
|
True disagreement with the system would require you to steal or murder. That' all that is required. Do not do anything that denies man a right to himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:30:49 PM |
|
True disagreement with the system would require you to steal or murder. Lies and hyperbole. Being under the system meanings being subjected to everything the system brings. |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:33:48 PM |
|
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. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"? I LOVE these arbitrary defintions! I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence. That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system! You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny. Except that in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you and all the people who agree with you can set-up your own government where all those who want to can voluntarily submit themselves to the security of a State with democratically elected officials and tens of thousands of arbitrary, confusing laws, theft of 30-50% of your livelihood, etc. The only catch is anyone who wants to gets to opt out, so you can't force your system upon us. Only those who want will partake of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:34:45 PM |
|
Anarchy: We will leave you alone, Whether you want it, or not!
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:35:25 PM |
|
Anarchy: We will leave you alone, Whether you want it, or not!
Hahahaha  Except those who want to be taxed and molested by a state are free to set up their own, as long as they don't force us to join it. |
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:37:23 PM |
|
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. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"? I LOVE these arbitrary defintions! I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence. That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system! You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny. Except that in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you and all the people who agree with you can set-up your own government where all those who want to can voluntarily submit themselves to the security of a State with democratically elected officials and tens of thousands of arbitrary, confusing laws, theft of 30-50% of your livelihood, etc. The only catch is anyone who wants to gets to opt out, so you can't force your system upon us. Only those who want will partake of it. But that's exactly what we have now. No one is forcing you to be here. You can leave at any time if you don't want to partake of it. |
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:40:31 PM |
|
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. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"? I LOVE these arbitrary defintions! I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence. That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system! You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny. Except that in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you and all the people who agree with you can set-up your own government where all those who want to can voluntarily submit themselves to the security of a State with democratically elected officials and tens of thousands of arbitrary, confusing laws, theft of 30-50% of your livelihood, etc. The only catch is anyone who wants to gets to opt out, so you can't force your system upon us. Only those who want will partake of it. But that's exactly what we have now. No one is forcing you to be here. You can leave at any time if you don't want to partake of it. That's the thing: Every place that has any decent economy is held captive by the central banks. There is nowhere to leave to. |
|
|
|
|
|
em3rgentOrdr
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:41:17 PM |
|
Anarchy: We will leave you alone, Whether you want it, or not! (™)
+1. LOL ROLF! That slogan should totally be trademarked.  |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:42:07 PM |
|
That's oppressive! I am entitled to your labor!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:44:29 PM |
|
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. +1 The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long. No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression. There is no contradiction there. AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force. So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"? I LOVE these arbitrary defintions! I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence. That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system! You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny. Except that in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you and all the people who agree with you can set-up your own government where all those who want to can voluntarily submit themselves to the security of a State with democratically elected officials and tens of thousands of arbitrary, confusing laws, theft of 30-50% of your livelihood, etc. The only catch is anyone who wants to gets to opt out, so you can't force your system upon us. Only those who want will partake of it. But that's exactly what we have now. No one is forcing you to be here. You can leave at any time if you don't want to partake of it. Wrong. If I decline to pay taxes I go to jail. That's not voluntary participation. Voluntary participation is if I choose to participate and to pay taxes to fund things like interest on the national debt, aggressive wars against foreign countries, entitlement programs I think are immoral etc. If I freely trade with other individuals, live on my private property, don't aggress against others but don't pay my taxes I will go to jail. That's not voluntary participation. |
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:48:48 PM |
|
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerrorismNo universal definition exists. Common definition is that there is a political, religious or ideological ground. Going with Merrian-Webster we have a look at that terror is "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government...". Hence terror, or terrorism isn't done on an individual level. No, I don't think your definition fits. I'd agree to criminal behaviour, but not terrorism. Also, from wikipedia "The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group." So you think that while you're drowning you'd say: "Hmm, I don't have enough money to pay what he's asking. Guess I'll just drown in peace."? Or do you think you'd agree to pretty much anything? Also, how much debt would you be willing to go into to save someone who is unable to haggle for price himself? "So you want $100 to rescue that drowning man, well I've only got $70 so I guess he's a goner then. Too bad for him" |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:51:56 PM |
|
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerrorismNo universal definition exists. Common definition is that there is a political, religious or ideological ground. Going with Merrian-Webster we have a look at that terror is "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government...". Hence terror, or terrorism isn't done on an individual level. No, I don't think your definition fits. I'd agree to criminal behaviour, but not terrorism. Also, from wikipedia "The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group." So you think that while you're drowning you'd say: "Hmm, I don't have enough money to pay what he's asking. Guess I'll just drown in peace."? Or do you think you'd agree to pretty much anything? Also, how much debt would you be willing to go into to save someone who is unable to haggle for price himself? "So you want $100 to rescue that drowning man, well I've only got $70 so I guess he's a goner then. Too bad for him" Most people would derive value from just saving the drowning man. A libertarian society does not ban human empathy. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 01, 2011, 09:06:12 PM |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerrorismSo you think that while you're drowning you'd say: "Hmm, I don't have enough money to pay what he's asking. Guess I'll just drown in peace."? Or do you think you'd agree to pretty much anything? Also, how much debt would you be willing to go into to save someone who is unable to haggle for price himself? "So you want $100 to rescue that drowning man, well I've only got $70 so I guess he's a goner then. Too bad for him" I asked Dictionary.com, and that's the definition it gave me. I stand by it. As to debt incurred while saving a life (mine or otherwise), That's what insurance is for. |
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
July 01, 2011, 09:07:36 PM |
|
See, here's the thing, people like to come up with very arbitrary and specific situations to try to prove how anarchy would fail, but often these situations would be just as bad or worse under government. For example, the situation with the drowning man. If there is a man drowning in the ocean, and there are two people on the beach. One of the people on the beach has a gun, but can't swim. The other has a boat, but no gun. The NAP says that the man with the gun should not force the man with the boat to save the drowning man. However, most laws in countries I know of also say that you can't put a gun to a person's head to force them to do something unless you are the government. So if the man with the boat does not want to help the man drowning the man with the gun will have to call the police and wait, and the man in the ocean will drown anyway.
The thing is it's pretty hard to imagine a situation like this, most people would care to help a drowning person, even for no monetary reward because of things like human empathy and compassion.
But say, for example under anarchy this situation exists and the man with the gun violates the NAP and forces the man with the boat to save the swimmer. The man with the boat takes the man with the gun to court. The court finds the man with the gun guilty of violating the NAP and essentially stealing the mans boat and time without paying for it. He will then have to pay restitution for the amount that the man's time and labor and use of the boat was worth. Perhaps, also some "emotional resitution" for putting a gun to the person's head but since the man wasn't physically hurt I doubt this would be that much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 01, 2011, 09:09:40 PM |
|
Most people would derive value from just saving the drowning man. A libertarian society does not ban human empathy.
I suppose, but what I'm trying to get through here is that the world isn't quite as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes it's necessary to choose the lesser of two evils, like breaking the law (or the NAP) to save a life. |
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
July 01, 2011, 09:17:13 PM |
|
See, here's the thing, people like to come up with very arbitrary and specific situations to try to prove how anarchy would fail, but often these situations would be just as bad or worse under government. For example, the situation with the drowning man. If there is a man drowning in the ocean, and there are two people on the beach. One of the people on the beach has a gun, but can't swim. The other has a boat, but no gun. The NAP says that the man with the gun should not force the man with the boat to save the drowning man. However, most laws in countries I know of also say that you can't put a gun to a person's head to force them to do something unless you are the government. So if the man with the boat does not want to help the man drowning the man with the gun will have to call the police and wait, and the man in the ocean will drown anyway.
The thing is it's pretty hard to imagine a situation like this, most people would care to help a drowning person, even for no monetary reward because of things like human empathy and compassion.
But say, for example under anarchy this situation exists and the man with the gun violates the NAP and forces the man with the boat to save the swimmer. The man with the boat takes the man with the gun to court. The court finds the man with the gun guilty of violating the NAP and essentially stealing the mans boat and time without paying for it. He will then have to pay restitution for the amount that the man's time and labor and use of the boat was worth. Perhaps, also some "emotional resitution" for putting a gun to the person's head but since the man wasn't physically hurt I doubt this would be that much.
Not where I'm at. I can steal your car, by force if you resist it, to drive a seriously hurt man to the hospital. I would go to court, and they will probably find my actions justifiable. I can break pretty much any law to save a life, but not murder obviously. If I need to use force, I can only use the least amount possible to get my will through. Seems like a better system than the holy NAP to me. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul (OP)
|
|
July 01, 2011, 09:18:45 PM |
|
Most people would derive value from just saving the drowning man. A libertarian society does not ban human empathy.
I suppose, but what I'm trying to get through here is that the world isn't quite as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes it's necessary to choose the lesser of two evils, like breaking the law (or the NAP) to save a life. And if he really feels that's the only way to save someone, then he should be prepared to pay the consequences. |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 01, 2011, 09:20:26 PM |
|
Most people would derive value from just saving the drowning man. A libertarian society does not ban human empathy.
I suppose, but what I'm trying to get through here is that the world isn't quite as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes it's necessary to choose the lesser of two evils, like breaking the law (or the NAP) to save a life. I believe it's more evil to sacrifice and violate other lives to save just one. |
|
|
|
|
|
