Maximum role of Government?

[myrkul]

How do I know if my life is in danger?

This one?

No, not that one.
Why is one person allowed to put a lot of others at risk with his actions, and why are they not allowed to stop him?

Risk != Threat. And you're not allowed to punish people for things that might happen. Plain and simple.

[JA37]

Risk != Threat. And you're not allowed to punish people for things that might happen. Plain and simple.

Punish? I'm not talking about punishing. I'm talking about prevention. By force as a last resort.
Please explain why his right to risk my life is greater than my right to protect myself from unnecessary risk.

[myrkul]

Risk != Threat. And you're not allowed to punish people for things that might happen. Plain and simple.

Punish? I'm not talking about punishing. I'm talking about prevention. By force as a last resort.

Then by limiting your actions to 'no force or threat of force, unless directly endangered', I'm not really limiting you at all. Just defining 'last resort' for you. So, what is your problem with it?

[ascent]

Then by limiting your actions to 'no force or threat of force, unless directly endangered', I'm not really limiting you at all. Just defining 'last resort' for you. So, what is your problem with it?

Who decides to follow your advice on when to limit and not limit? How do you ensure that everyone collectively follows your advice on what they should be limited on and not be limited on? Who decides and enforces the behavior of the four men on the raft? Does this 'limiting' or lack of 'limiting' occur in different degrees when one is on your property vs. another's property?

[indio007]

Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?

Why are you putting up with it is the better question. Those who fail to defend their rights have none.

The roads are a microcosm of the gov't sponsored kleptocracy.
They have tricked millions of people into licensing and registering thereby waiving their rights in return for the benefit privileges of their limited liability insurance scam.

[myrkul]

Then by limiting your actions to 'no force or threat of force, unless directly endangered', I'm not really limiting you at all. Just defining 'last resort' for you. So, what is your problem with it?

Who decides to follow your advice on when to limit and not limit? How do you ensure that everyone collectively follows your advice on what they should be limited on and not be limited on? Who decides and enforces the behavior of the four men on the raft? Does this 'limiting' or lack of 'limiting' occur in different degrees when one is on your property vs. another's property?

I'll answer each individually:
Who decides to follow your advice on when to limit and not limit?

I know this is going to be difficult for a collectivist like yourself to wrap your head around, but I have confidence in you. Each person individually decides whether to adhere to the NAP or not. In the current statist society, the equivalent is that in reality, each person chooses whether or not to adhere to the law.

How do you ensure that everyone collectively follows your advice on what they should be limited on and not be limited on?

Again, I do not. Each person chooses whether or not to adhere to the NAP, just as today they choose whether or not to follow the law.

Who decides and enforces the behavior of the four men on the raft?

Warning: This may hurt the statist brain: The four men on the raft police themselves.

Does this 'limiting' or lack of 'limiting' occur in different degrees when one is on your property vs. another's property?

Externally, it may seem to, but in reality, it does not. If you are on my property, you follow my rules or you are trespassing. If you trespass, I am able to evict you. If I am on your property, I follow your rules. In either case, force or threat of force is not justified except in self-defense from same. For example: You are on my property. I can not come in and tell you 'New rule: You give me all your money or I shoot you'. Well, I can, but I would not be acting within the NAP, I would be attempting to coerce you out of your money. At that point you would be justified in shooting me, so, if I thought about it, I probably wouldn't do it. Even if I succeeded, the benefit would not be worth losing your friendship, not to mention all the other consequences of such an action: restitution, the gigantic reputation hit, and a possible blackballing.

[ascent]

In either case, force or threat of force is not justified except in self-defense from same.

Your answer to question #4 is referring to the two potentially different cases of being on your property or someone else's property. You're stating that in either case, force or threat of force is not justified except in self-defense from same. But when you answered question #1, you stated that each person individually decides to adhere to the NAP or not.

[myrkul]

In either case, force or threat of force is not justified except in self-defense from same.

Your answer to question #4 is referring to the two potentially different cases of being on your property or someone else's property. You're stating that in either case, force or threat of force is not justified except in self-defense from same. But when you answered question #1, you stated that each person individually decides to adhere to the NAP or not.

Yes. You do know that writing a law does not remove free will, right?

[ascent]

Yes. You do know that writing a law does not remove free will, right?

But what I'm asking is, can someone else have a law that when on his property, the NAP is not in effect? Assuming the answer is yes, then it stands to reason that the NAP is not something that can be counted on except when on your property. Assuming the answer is no, then it stands to reason that some larger entity has made the NAP law. Who would that larger entity be?

[myrkul]

Yes. You do know that writing a law does not remove free will, right?

But what I'm asking is, can someone else have a law that when on his property, the NAP is not in effect? Assuming the answer is yes, then it stands to reason that the NAP is not something that can be counted on except when on your property. Assuming the answer is no, then it stands to reason that some larger entity has made the NAP law. Who would that larger entity be?

Ahh, the statist mind.

Ok, let me see if I can explain this. As the name implies, the NAP is a principle.

prin·ci·ple

• 1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
• 2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
• 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
• 4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
• 5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
• 6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use.
• 7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.
• 8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle.

As such, there is no, and it needs no, over-arching body to govern its use. It applies wherever you are, no matter whose property you are on, everywhere, and for all time.

[ascent]

As such, there is no, and it needs no, over-arching body to govern its use. It applies wherever you are, no matter whose property you are on, everywhere, and for all time.

In other words, it means nothing. Everyone is entirely at the whim of whether any one individual believes, pretends to believe, or does not believe in the PRINCIPLE. Obviously, there will be individuals of all stripes. As you've stated, there is no NAP law.

[myrkul]

As such, there is no, and it needs no, over-arching body to govern its use. It applies wherever you are, no matter whose property you are on, everywhere, and for all time.

In other words, it means nothing. Everyone is entirely at the whim of whether any one individual believes, pretends to believe, or does not believe in the PRINCIPLE. Obviously, there will be individuals of all stripes. As you've stated, there is no NAP law.

In what way is that different from today?

FYI:the original mouseover text said: "Sometimes I'm terrified to realize how many options other people have."

[billyjoeallen]

Statist: How do you force people not to use force?
Libertarian: You don't. You convince them.
Statist: That won't work. People are often unreasonable.
Libertarian: so then you deny them opportunities
Statist: What do you mean?
Libertarian: Don't talk to them. Don't invite them to parties. Don't loan them money, buy or sell from them.
Statist: that isn't a strong enough incentive.
Libertarian: I gotta go.
Statist: Wait!

[myrkul]

Statist: How do you force people not to use force?
Libertarian: You don't. You convince them.
Statist: That won't work. People are often unreasonable.
Libertarian: so then you deny them opportunities
Statist: What do you mean?
Libertarian: Don't talk to them. Don't invite them to parties. Don't loan them money, buy or sell from them.
Statist: that isn't a strong enough incentive.
Libertarian: I gotta go.
Statist: Wait!

I'm going to tell that at parties. Of course, it will only get a laugh at Porcfest.

[AyeYo]

In what way is that different from today?

Well it's massively different in that, today, if someone violates a law they will be hunted down and prosecuted by the centralized entity which established the law.  This threat of great negative outcomes keeps more people in line than would otherwise stay in line if the threat didn't exist.

Since your principle is just a principle and is backed up by no authority, force, or threat, it's uselss because people have no incentive to follow it and will not do so unless they were already inclined to follow it by personal beliefs.

[myrkul]

In what way is that different from today?

Since your principle is just a principle and is backed up by no authority, force, or threat, it's uselss because people have no incentive to follow it and will not do so unless they were already inclined to follow it by personal beliefs.

Wrong. Just wrong. Seriously, Don't talk about that which you are completely ignorant of.

[AyeYo]

Your response is useless.  If I'm wrong, then give a detailed explanation and refute what I said.

[myrkul]

Your response is useless.  If I'm wrong, then give a detailed explanation and refute what I said.

I have, in 3 or four other threads, and every one of these 16 pages.

Since your principle is just a principle and is backed up by no authority, force, or threat, it's uselss because people have no incentive to follow it and will not do so unless they were already inclined to follow it by personal beliefs.

Short answer: Those who do not follow it will be summarily shot, by the person they are attempting to coerce. Long answer: read the rest of my posts.

[AyeYo]

Short answer: Those who do not follow it will be summarily shot, by the person they are attempting to coerce. Long answer: read the rest of my posts.

Yea, so basically you have no realistic way to deal with this issue and we're back to where your world always ends up: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules.

[myrkul]

Short answer: Those who do not follow it will be summarily shot, by the person they are attempting to coerce. Long answer: read the rest of my posts.

Yea, so basically you have no realistic way to deal with this issue and we're back to where your world always ends up: the man with the biggest gun makes the rules.

Good lord man, you CAN NOT be this dense and still manage to dress yourself in the morning. I am forced to conclude you are intentionally trolling. How much would it cost to shut you up permanently? I'll start a collection.