Maximum role of Government?

[AyeYo]

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

[JA37]

Then you're better off swimming.

Still waiting on your argument as to why murder is wrong. You said before you could prove it. Time to do so.

Really? I can endanger everyone and you won't do anything to prevent it until you're royally screwed? Please justify how you think this is right.

[myrkul]

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

I've told you once, I don't want to have to tell you again, troll elsewhere.

Now, if you're willing to have an intellectual discussion, please justify why murder is wrong so that I can properly frame my response as to why coercion is wrong.

[JA37]

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

I've told you once, I don't want to have to tell you again, troll elsewhere.

Now, if you're willing to have an intellectual discussion, please justify why murder is wrong so that I can properly frame my response as to why coercion is wrong.

I would like an answer to my question if you don't mind. 

[AyeYo]

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

I've told you once, I don't want to have to tell you again, troll elsewhere.

Now, if you're willing to have an intellectual discussion, please justify why murder is wrong so that I can properly frame my response as to why coercion is wrong.

You mean you want me to make an argument for why murder is bad so that you can attack my murder argument while ignoring the defense of your own claim from many pages ago?  No thanks.

[myrkul]

I would like an answer to my question if you don't mind. 

You mean you want me to make an argument for why murder is bad so that you can attack my murder argument while ignoring the defense of your own claim from many pages ago?  No thanks.

If either one of you will give me a moral framework within which to work, I will gladly explain to you why coercion is wrong. I will not attack any argument you make because I agree, murder is wrong. I would like to see why you think so, however.

[AyeYo]

Just defend your statement and stop deflecting.

[myrkul]

Just defend your statement and stop deflecting.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[JA37]

I would like an answer to my question if you don't mind. 

You mean you want me to make an argument for why murder is bad so that you can attack my murder argument while ignoring the defense of your own claim from many pages ago?  No thanks.

If either one of you will give me a moral framework within which to work, I will gladly explain to you why coercion is wrong. I will not attack any argument you make because I agree, murder is wrong. I would like to see why you think so, however.

I agree that coercion is wrong most of the time. But not all of the time. Which I think my example proves. Somewhere there's a balance between what you should coerce people to do or don't do, and what you shouldn't. I can't define that line, and it does change, but I believe it's there.

Now, please explain to me why coercion is always wrong. Why can't I force someone to stop putting my life at risk?

[myrkul]

Now, please explain to me why coercion is always wrong. Why can't I force someone to stop putting my life at risk?

Coercion is always wrong because if violates the non-aggression principle.

I should note here that 'putting your life at risk' is not the same thing as 'threatening your life'

The juggler is putting your life at risk, but if he is skilled enough will not kill you, or him.

The man with the ax is threatening your life.

[JA37]

Now, please explain to me why coercion is always wrong. Why can't I force someone to stop putting my life at risk?

Coercion is always wrong because if violates the non-aggression principle.

I should note here that 'putting your life at risk' is not the same thing as 'threatening your life'

The juggler is putting your life at risk, but if he is skilled enough will not kill you, or him.

The man with the ax is threatening your life.

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

Agreed, he's putting my life at risk. He might be willing to take that risk, but why should I have to?

[myrkul]

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

This is why I asked you to define why murder is wrong, first. So that I could put it into terms you would accept.

[JA37]

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

This is why I asked you to define why murder is wrong, first. So that I could put it into terms you would accept.

I've never claimed to be able to define why murder is wrong. Haven't thought enough about it. It's an intuitive thing for me. I might get back to you though. But claiming that something is right because it follows rules that you yourself defined clearly isn't a good answer.

[myrkul]

Violates the NAP? Ok then, here's your answer to why murder is wrong: "Murder is wrong because it says so in the bible. ". It's a non-answer too.

This is why I asked you to define why murder is wrong, first. So that I could put it into terms you would accept.

I've never claimed to be able to define why murder is wrong. Haven't thought enough about it. It's an intuitive thing for me. I might get back to you though. But claiming that something is right because it follows rules that you yourself defined clearly isn't a good answer.

Well, you asked for a definition, and there it is. I could go into further detail but that would be simply defining the NAP, which has been done to death elsewhere.

As to your question about the juggler, You didn't have to get on that lifeboat. Back at the ship, there were plenty others. For that matter, you didn't have to get on the ship in the first place. You could have stayed home.

[JA37]

Well, you asked for a definition, and there it is. I could go into further detail but that would be simply defining the NAP, which has been done to death elsewhere.

As to your question about the juggler, You didn't have to get on that lifeboat. Back at the ship, there were plenty others. For that matter, you didn't have to get on the ship in the first place. You could have stayed home.

So it's wrong because I say so? Is that your definition? Then you shouldn't have a problem with our current society, because what's being done to you is "right because we said so".

So I'm supposed to be able to predict the future to avoid having people put me in unnecessary risk? That guy is forcing me to take a risk I'm not willing to take, but that isn't a violation of the NAP, or is it?

[NghtRppr]

Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Right.

Once you allow that someones fear of risky behavior permits coercion then any form of tyranny can be justified. There's no stopping point. If teenage males are more likely to commit crimes than any other demographic, you can argue that we should lock them up until they are adults.

Unless of course, when you said "your life raft" you meant that I actually own it. In which case, I can set any rules I want because it's my life raft.

[myrkul]

So it's wrong because I say so? Is that your definition? Then you shouldn't have a problem with our current society, because what's being done to you is "right because we said so".

So I'm supposed to be able to predict the future to avoid having people put me in unnecessary risk? That guy is forcing me to take a risk I'm not willing to take, but that isn't a violation of the NAP, or is it?

No, it's wrong because the NAP says so. If you want more information on why the NAP says so, there is plenty of data, even in other threads on this board, that I do not feel the need to rehash. If you or AyeYo will give me a definition as to why you feel murder is wrong, even though you disagree with the NAP, I will couch my explanation in terms that you will accept based on that framework.

And Yes, to some extent, you are asked to predict the future in every aspect of life. Every action you take is a risk. Even inaction is a risk, because of unpredictable factors of nature. That said, If you got on a raft with a knife juggler, you knew what you were getting into.

[JA37]

Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

Right.

Once you allow that someones fear of risky behavior permits coercion then any form of tyranny can be justified. There's no stopping point. If teenage males are more likely to commit crimes than any other demographic, you can argue that we should lock them up until they are adults.

Unless of course, when you said "your life raft" you meant that I actually own it. In which case, I can set any rules I want because it's my life raft.

Why wouldn't there be a stopping point? Why does everything have to be all or nothing?

If you happen to own the raft you're free to endanger everybody's life for your own amusement? Even if we ended up there unwilling?

[myrkul]

If you happen to own the raft you're free to endanger everybody's life for your own amusement? Even if we ended up there unwilling?

You always have a choice. Sometimes it's a shit choice (Take your chances on the raft, or drown when the boat sinks) but it's still a choice, and you made it.

[JA37]

No, it's wrong because the NAP says so. If you want more information on why the NAP says so, there is plenty of data, even in other threads on this board, that I do not feel the need to rehash. If you or AyeYo will give me a definition as to why you feel murder is wrong, even though you disagree with the NAP, I will couch my explanation in terms that you will accept based on that framework.

And Yes, to some extent, you are asked to predict the future in every aspect of life. Every action you take is a risk. Even inaction is a risk, because of unpredictable factors of nature. That said, If you got on a raft with a knife juggler, you knew what you were getting into.

Yes, and the NAP is defined by "you". If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so? The NNNAP says that you can use coercion when your life is in danger.

Yes, living is risky. Why is it OK for others to decide what risk I should take? In most cases I can leave, and that would be the right choice, but if I can't I'll have to rely on the NNNAP to save me.