Maximum role of Government?

[NghtRppr]

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?

Teenage males are allowed to endanger everyone's life for their own amusement? Lock them up!

If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so?

No, we just have a difference in opinion. We can either debate it until one of us changes our minds or you can commit violence on me or my property and then we go from there.

[JA37]

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.

Wasn't your argument the other way when it came to you go live somewhere else? You couldn't leave and go live in Somalia, Afghanistan or try seasteading to find your libertarian paradise. Isn't you staying put one of those "shit choice"s for you?

[AyeYo]

This shit gets funnier and more contradictory by the second.  I'm not even going to bother slogging through the mess to point it all out though.  These two guys have proven that they are not interested in (or are completely incapable of) real debate.  I don't mind debating fools, but I will not waste time debating intellectually dishonest fools who, when finally cornered, resort to, "NO, YOU!" like a small child would.  That's not productive for anyone and the debate goes absolutely no where.  Why bother giving myself carpal tunnel to tread water in a neverending loop of dishonest debate?

[myrkul]

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.

If your life is actually in danger, it's not coercion. That's called 'self defense'. If you only think your life is in danger, then you're wrong.

Let's use a more realistic example. The speeding car.

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

[AyeYo]

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your example is as retarded as you are.  Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

[myrkul]

This shit gets funnier and more contradictory by the second.  I'm not even going to bother slogging through the mess to point it all out though.  These two guys have proven that they are not interested in (or are completely incapable of) real debate.  I don't mind debating fools, but I will not waste time debating intellectually dishonest fools who, when finally cornered, resort to, "NO, YOU!" like a small child would.  That's not productive for anyone and the debate goes absolutely no where.  Why bother giving myself carpal tunnel to tread water in a neverending loop of dishonest debate?

Troll Elsewhere.

Or, you're welcome to answer this question to get an answer to why Coercion is wrong, couched in your very on moral framework you might even say, custom written just for you:

Why is Murder Wrong?

If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.

[myrkul]

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

Never said it wasn't, just that reacting to crime is better than punishing those who haven't yet done a thing.

[AyeYo]

If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.

If you're unwilling to jump off a cliff, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate and are just trolling.

[JA37]

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.

If your life is actually in danger, it's not coercion. That's called 'self defense'. If you only think your life is in danger, then you're wrong.

Let's use a more realistic example. The speeding car.

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

How do I know if my life is in danger? In the example with the juggler I'm not allowed to do anything until he punctures the raft and we're all shark bait.

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

[AyeYo]

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

Never said it wasn't, just that reacting to crime is better than punishing those who haven't yet done a thing.

And still you have not justified that statement.  You still still still have not explained WHY IT IS BETTER to allow a person's risky actions to cost many others their money, possessions, or even lives.

[myrkul]

If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.

If you're unwilling to jump off a cliff, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate and are just trolling.

I'll let you answer this one:

Just defend your statement and stop deflecting.

[JA37]

Teenage males are allowed to endanger everyone's life for their own amusement? Lock them up!

No, we just have a difference in opinion. We can either debate it until one of us changes our minds or you can commit violence on me or my property and then we go from there.

We've put restrictions on what teenagers are allowed to do, to prevent them from screwing up other peoples lives. I think that's a better solution than waiting for them to do something bad and then punish them.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that your NAP isn't worth more than my NNNAP. It's just a set of rules, and "it's wrong because the NAP says so" doesn't make it so.

[myrkul]

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

You're right, Mario Andretti is far to skilled to run into the other drivers. There's no need to penalize them for his good.

[AyeYo]

DUI is an excellent example as well.  In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving.  Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.  Only drunk crashing would be illegal.  After the guy with the 0.20 BAC runs the red light and kills your girlfriend, THEN you might be able to sue him.  Unfortunately, no size settlement will ever bring her back, but a DUI checkpoint or an alert cop that snagged him for his "victimless crime" of DUI could have prevented her death.


PLEASE justify that worldview for me.

[NghtRppr]

In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving.  Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.

Only on roads that allow it, which would be absolutely no roads or very few. Would you go to a bar that allowed someone to stab you? Then why would you drive on a road that allowed drunks to smash into you?

Three common flaws of statists on these forums:

1. Extreme deficit in civility/maturity.
2. Terminal lack of imagination.
3. Inflated sense of entitlement.

[AyeYo]

In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving.  Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.

Only on roads that allow it

There aren't any roads that allow it now, but people DUI all the time.  The only thing that stops it is alert cops and DUI checkpoints.  Not allowing something is laughable, because unless there's force behind the rule, it's not a rule.  And since no one is allowed to initiate force or stop "victimless" crime, no one can do a damn thing to the drunk driver until AFTER he actually hurts someone.

[NghtRppr]

There aren't any roads that allow it now, but people DUI all the time.  The only thing that stops it is alert cops and DUI checkpoints.  Not allowing something is laughable, because unless there's force behind the rule, it's not a rule.  And since no one is allowed to initiate force or stop "victimless" crime, no one can do a damn thing to the drunk driver until AFTER he actually hurts someone.

You don't even understand libertarianism. If you voluntarily agree to my enforcement, which will be a condition of driving on my road, then I can stop you, arrest you or anything else you agreed to. If you agree to let me beat you if I catch you speeding or driving while intoxicated, I can beat the hell out of you. Go read up on libertarianism because you can't even cogently disagree with something that you are ignorant of.

[myrkul]

PLEASE justify that worldview for me.

Private roads.

Your choice:

• take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
• take the one that has armed patrols,
• or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

[JA37]

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

You're right, Mario Andretti is far to skilled to run into the other drivers. There's no need to penalize them for his good.

You seem to have missed answering the other question I asked. An oversight I'm sure.

[indio007]

The problem you are all having is really a legal one.
Some people like the gov't statutory limited liability insurance schemes.
Others want strict and full liability for injuries IN FACT to people and property.