Maximum role of Government?

[ascent]

How much would it cost to shut you up permanently? I'll start a collection.

I can amend my fee structure to include permanently shutting up if you would like.

[myrkul]

How much would it cost to shut you up permanently? I'll start a collection.

I can amend my fee structure to include permanently shutting up if you would like.

You were doing so well, though. AyeYo, on the other hand, I am certain could make a large bundle.

So, why don't you tell me how what I propose is any different than today, in 'stopping' people from doing anything?

[ascent]

So, why don't you tell me how what I propose is any different than today, in 'stopping' people from doing anything?

It's different because what you propose is not necessarily what your neighbor proposes. In fact, either you're proposing that your neighbor abides by your system, or you are not.

Your fabled system is not a system, except on your property. Unless of course you are coercing your neighbor to use the same system. But by the rules of your system, coercion is not allowed.

[myrkul]

Your fabled system is not a system, except on your property. Unless of course you are coercing your neighbor to use the same system. But by the rules of your system, coercion is not allowed.

That's the beauty. It doesn't have to be a system. As long as he leaves me alone, it doesn't matter what he does on his property. As long as I leave him alone, the same applies. That isn't to say that he can freely murder on his property, because he is, at that point, not leaving someone alone. I see a murder about to go down, I can stop it.

[ascent]

That isn't to say that he can freely murder on his property, because he is, at that point, not leaving someone alone. I see a murder about to go down, I can stop it.

Who says you can stop it?

[myrkul]

That isn't to say that he can freely murder on his property, because he is, at that point, not leaving someone alone. I see a murder about to go down, I can stop it.

Who says you can stop it?

To quote Rothbard:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

[ascent]

That isn't to say that he can freely murder on his property, because he is, at that point, not leaving someone alone. I see a murder about to go down, I can stop it.

Who says you can stop it?

To quote Rothbard:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

That's nice and all, but who enforces that principle consistently?

[ascent]

Individually or on a national scale? I do it everyday on an individual scale by not harming anyone who doesn't try to harm another, and by involving myself when individuals attempt to harm others. I get the feeling that's not what you meant though. 

The world is not necessarily composed of an army of BitMoles.

[myrkul]

That's nice and all, but who enforces that principle consistently?

Ahh, the statist mind.

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

Perhaps your problem is that you have no principles, and thus cannot see how one would be applied?

Individually or on a national scale? I do it everyday on an individual scale by not harming anyone who doesn't try to harm another, and by involving myself when individuals attempt to harm others. I get the feeling that's not what you meant though.  

Everyone does it on an individual scale, everywhere.

[myrkul]

Individually or on a national scale? I do it everyday on an individual scale by not harming anyone who doesn't try to harm another, and by involving myself when individuals attempt to harm others. I get the feeling that's not what you meant though. 

The world is not necessarily composed of an army of BitMoles.

So... Let me get this straight. You believe, that because there is evil in the world, we must give someone ultimate power over us, so that that evil does not take over?

[ascent]

So... Let me get this straight. You believe, that because there is evil in the world, we must give someone ultimate power over us, so that that evil does not take over?

Ultimate power? No. There are distinctions to be made here. No time right no though. Maybe later.

[myrkul]

So... Let me get this straight. You believe, that because there is evil in the world, we must give someone ultimate power over us, so that that evil does not take over?

Ultimate power? No. There are distinctions to be made here. No time right no though. Maybe later.

If not ultimate power, then who would "enforce that principle consistently"?

[AyeYo]

So... Let me get this straight. You believe, that because there is evil in the world, we must give someone ultimate power over us, so that that evil does not take over?

Ultimate power? No. There are distinctions to be made here. No time right no though. Maybe later.

If not ultimate power, then who would "enforce that principle consistently"?

The world was black and white when I was twelve too.  I remember everything used to be an all or nothing proposition. 

Then I grew up.

[myrkul]

Then I grew up.

[citation needed]

[billyjoeallen]

So... Let me get this straight. You believe, that because there is evil in the world, we must give someone ultimate power over us, so that that evil does not take over?

Ultimate power? No. There are distinctions to be made here. No time right no though. Maybe later.

If not ultimate power, then who would "enforce that principle consistently"?

The world was black and white when I was twelve too.  I remember everything used to be an all or nothing proposition. 

Then I grew up.

You can't have it both ways.  If you want to criticize an inconsistent application of the NAP in Libertopia, then you can't claim that you are too sophisticated to see things purely in black and white.  You hold your interlocutor to a higher standard than yourself.

[AyeYo]

So... Let me get this straight. You believe, that because there is evil in the world, we must give someone ultimate power over us, so that that evil does not take over?

Ultimate power? No. There are distinctions to be made here. No time right no though. Maybe later.

If not ultimate power, then who would "enforce that principle consistently"?

The world was black and white when I was twelve too.  I remember everything used to be an all or nothing proposition. 

Then I grew up.

You can't have it both ways.  If you want to criticize an inconsistent application of the NAP in Libertopia, then you can't claim that you are too sophisticated to see things purely in black and white. 

Oh but I can, because Libertopia DEPENDS ON a consistent application of this non-aggression bullshit.  Therefore, if the application is inconsistent, the system isn't real-world worthy.


On the other hand, there are MANY shades of gray between no power and ultimate power.  Making the illogical, idiotic mental leap that if zero power is insufficient then the ONLY other possibility must be ultimate power... well that's just... illogical and idiotic.

[myrkul]

Oh but I can, because Libertopia DEPENDS ON a consistent application of this non-aggression bullshit.  Therefore, if the application is inconsistent, the system isn't real-world worthy.

Since when does someone breaking a law render that law invalid?

The NAP boils down to "don't fuck with people". Those that fuck with people get fucked back. That's the way it works.

[AyeYo]

Oh but I can, because Libertopia DEPENDS ON a consistent application of this non-aggression bullshit.  Therefore, if the application is inconsistent, the system isn't real-world worthy.

Since when does someone breaking a law render that law invalid?

The NAP boils down to "don't fuck with people". Those that fuck with people get fucked back. That's the way it works.

Absolutely.  And with the removal of the central authority that keeps the fucking under control, what you end up with is a massive clusterfuck - which has been my point all along.

[JA37]

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?

I didn't get that. Explain if it's important.

And how come you always seem to forget to answer the question: Please explain why his right to risk my life is greater than my right to protect myself from unnecessary risk?

And another question for you. If you use the NAP as a guiding principle for all your actions, could you see any situation where you would have to abandon the NAP for any reason?

[compro01]

If you use the NAP as a guiding principle for all your actions, could you see any situation where you would have to abandon the NAP for any reason?

presumably via his logic, any situation that would call for the use of aggression would only be as the result of some other's action which meets some definition of "aggressive".