What's so special about the NAP?

[punningclan]

The moral structure of the NAP is in the wording of the NAP: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person.

Why do you need the NAP to state that? As I said several times before, the NAP is meaningless.

I'll ask you again, for about the tenth time over the past year: what if I hire a gang of thugs (oops - I mean security firm) who aren't into the NAP, but instead, the NNNAP. NNNAP stands for Not Necessarily Non Aggression Principle. This might be the wording of the NNNAP: No person has the right to stand within 20 feet of me when I am wearing black, regardless of where I am.

Can I just pick any law and say it's meaningless?

There's hardly a lack of precedent for one law or another being tested and over-ridden right through the entire circuit of courts and judges, and there are so many laws to choose from, can I please say just one of them is meaningless? In the European court there really are laws that prevent people from say hanging their washing out on one day versus another! Can you believe it? In my opinion those are very much an indication that a legal system needs to be pared down a tad, don't you think?

[Hawker]

We've established in another thread there would only be 1 defence agency.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? 'cause I don't know who the hell "we" is, otherwise.

You making a claim does not equal establishing something.

You've agreed with the logic.  Even if you change your mind, the logic remains the same.  In a market economy there is no place for a defence agency that does not protect you so they are bound not to ever arbitrate.  Over a short period, the most powerful defence agency will move to being the only one as no other agency can defeat it.  

The important thing here is that this final defence agency is not elected.  Nor is it chosen by virtue of being an ethical organisation.  It has superior fire-power so its your new government.

[FirstAscent]

The moral structure of the NAP is in the wording of the NAP: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person.

Why do you need the NAP to state that? As I said several times before, the NAP is meaningless.

I'll ask you again, for about the tenth time over the past year: what if I hire a gang of thugs (oops - I mean security firm) who aren't into the NAP, but instead, the NNNAP. NNNAP stands for Not Necessarily Non Aggression Principle. This might be the wording of the NNNAP: No person has the right to stand within 20 feet of me when I am wearing black, regardless of where I am.

Can I just pick any law and say it's meaningless?

In NAP-Land, yes, you can make up your own laws. All the NAPsters here mistakenly assume NAP is the law of the land. They assume.

There's hardly a lack of precedent for one law or another being tested and over-ridden right through the entire circuit of courts and judges, and there are so many laws to choose from, can I please say just one of them is meaningless? In the European court there really are laws that prevent people from say hanging their washing out on one day versus another! Can you believe it? In my opinion those are very much an indication that a legal system needs to be pared down a tad, don't you think?

These are old laws that were on the books from over a hundred years ago, typically. What of it? Go ahead and say it's meaningless.

It's what you can do in NAP-Land that is the subject here.

[asdf]

You've agreed with the logic.  Even if you change your mind, the logic remains the same.  In a market economy there is no place for a defence agency that does not protect you so they are bound not to ever arbitrate.  Over a short period, the most powerful defence agency will move to being the only one as no other agency can defeat it.  

The important thing here is that this final defence agency is not elected.  Nor is it chosen by virtue of being an ethical organisation.  It has superior fire-power so its your new government.

You forget that defense agencies, while not elected, are voluntarily paid for. People vote with their wallets in a free market. If a defense agency starts attacking other defense agencies, they will lose members and go broke. People will instead fund their competitors and everyone will stop doing business with them (suppliers, contractors, investors etc). How can they win when the entire mechanics of the market works against them?

Your conflating defense agencies with governments, who have the ability to fund themselves with force, hence are not accountable to the market. A defense agency is NOT a government, it's a profit seeking business. Big difference. War is very expensive and destructive for business.

[Hawker]

You've agreed with the logic.  Even if you change your mind, the logic remains the same.  In a market economy there is no place for a defence agency that does not protect you so they are bound not to ever arbitrate.  Over a short period, the most powerful defence agency will move to being the only one as no other agency can defeat it.  

The important thing here is that this final defence agency is not elected.  Nor is it chosen by virtue of being an ethical organisation.  It has superior fire-power so its your new government.

You forget that defense agencies, while not elected, are voluntarily paid for. People vote with their wallets in a free market. If a defense agency starts attacking other defense agencies, they will lose members and go broke. People will instead fund their competitors and everyone will stop doing business with them (suppliers, contractors, investors etc). How can they win when the entire mechanics of the market works against them?

Your conflating defense agencies with governments, who have the ability to fund themselves with force, hence are not accountable to the market. A defense agency is NOT a government, it's a profit seeking business. Big difference. War is very expensive and destructive for business.

Incorrect.  Defence agencies will operate for profit.  They can only get customers if they deliver and that will take violence.  Each dispute that comes to violence will result in 1 winner and 1 defence agency that can't say it protects its customes so its goes bust.

The market will work and you will end up with 1.

"Customers" have to pay.  No defence company means you can be killed.  So people like Blackwater will be your "defence agency"

With tax, you get to vote on the people who enact it.  With these gunmen, you basically pay up or die adn they choose how much you pay. 

Nice idea isn't it?

[myrkul]

Incorrect.  Defence agencies will operate for profit.  They can only get customers if they deliver and that will take violence.  Each dispute that comes to violence will result in 1 winner and 1 defence agency that can't say it protects its customes so its goes bust.

I've said it before, and I will continue to say it until it sticks. Defense agencies do not attack other defense agencies. The first one that does gets wiped off the map by all the others. Defense agencies are for defense. If you have a dispute, you go to arbitration.

[Hawker]

Incorrect.  Defence agencies will operate for profit.  They can only get customers if they deliver and that will take violence.  Each dispute that comes to violence will result in 1 winner and 1 defence agency that can't say it protects its customes so its goes bust.

I've said it before, and I will continue to say it until it sticks. Defense agencies do not attack other defense agencies. The first one that does gets wiped off the map by all the others. Defense agencies are for defense. If you have a dispute, you go to arbitration.

Two problems with that:
1. You have people paying for defence agencies but they don't actually get defended.  If there is a free market, those agencies will go bust. 
2. You have defence agencies that won't attack other defence agencies getting together against a rule breaker and it get "wiped off the map."  That surely requires them to attack? 

[myrkul]

Two problems with that:
1. You have people paying for defence agencies but they don't actually get defended.  If there is a free market, those agencies will go bust. 
2. You have defence agencies that won't attack other defence agencies getting together against a rule breaker and it get "wiped off the map."  That surely requires them to attack? 

1. Defended against whom? If you initiate force, you are, by definition, not defending anything. You're attacking.
2. If I attack you, and you or your friends fight back, are you attacking, or are you defending? It's the same thing, writ large.

[Hawker]

Two problems with that:
1. You have people paying for defence agencies but they don't actually get defended.  If there is a free market, those agencies will go bust. 
2. You have defence agencies that won't attack other defence agencies getting together against a rule breaker and it get "wiped off the map."  That surely requires them to attack? 

1. Defended against whom? If you initiate force, you are, by definition, not defending anything. You're attacking.
2. If I attack you, and you or your friends fight back, are you attacking, or are you defending? It's the same thing, writ large.

1. That's childish.  Every dispute that goes to a court hearing involves 2 people who both believe they are right and that the other side has attacked them.  The same will be true in your utopia.  So defence firms will be retained to fight against one another.  The alternative is that you think little old ladies who are dispossessed have to do the fighting themselves.
2. In your scenario, the defence firms that gang up to destroy one firm that they consider to be a rogue are attacking that rogue.  They are taking the law into their own hands killing people.  The one they attack will have allies as well since there are 2 sides to every story.  One side will win and that side will have the business/protection fees of the losing side.  That creates a very strong market incentive to carry on fighting until one is left.

[myrkul]

1. That's childish.  Every dispute that goes to a court hearing involves 2 people who both believe they are right and that the other side has attacked them.  The same will be true in your utopia.  So defence firms will be retained to fight against one another.  The alternative is that you think little old ladies who are dispossessed have to do the fighting themselves.

With respect, you're a moron. I have repeatedly told you that we are not discussing courts. We are discussing arbitration, where each side has contractually agreed to abide by the decision of the arbiter.

2. In your scenario, the defence firms that gang up to destroy one firm that they consider to be a rogue are attacking that rogue.  They are taking the law into their own hands killing people.  The one they attack will have allies as well since there are 2 sides to every story.  One side will win and that side will have the business/protection fees of the losing side.  That creates a very strong market incentive to carry on fighting until one is left.

If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you defending, or attacking? It's the same thing, writ large.

[Hawker]

1. That's childish.  Every dispute that goes to a court hearing involves 2 people who both believe they are right and that the other side has attacked them.  The same will be true in your utopia.  So defence firms will be retained to fight against one another.  The alternative is that you think little old ladies who are dispossessed have to do the fighting themselves.

With respect, you're a moron. I have repeatedly told you that we are not discussing courts. We are discussing arbitration, where each side has contractually agreed to abide by the decision of the arbiter.

2. In your scenario, the defence firms that gang up to destroy one firm that they consider to be a rogue are attacking that rogue.  They are taking the law into their own hands killing people.  The one they attack will have allies as well since there are 2 sides to every story.  One side will win and that side will have the business/protection fees of the losing side.  That creates a very strong market incentive to carry on fighting until one is left.

If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you defending, or attacking? It's the same thing, writ large.

1. Arbitration requires enforcement.  What do you do when someone refuses to accept the outcome?  Or even refuses to accept arbitration at all?  To be useful, it has be have enforcement.  Ultimately, that means a threat of violence.  If your defence companies are not going to do the enforcement, who will?

2. Arguing over whether or not defence companies that gang up and destroy a smaller defence company are defending or attacking is semantics.  They are applying violence.  Their competitor will be destroyed and they will take over its territory/client base.  Every dispute that results in violence will eliminate a defence company.  You end up with 1.  That one firm will be able to set whatever rate it wants and anyone who fails to pay will suffer.

The weird thing is that you are advocating this as better than what we have now.  Courts that enforce decisions are always better than arbitration that cannot be enforced.  A right to vote on your tax rate is always better than having someone win the right to take whatever money they want off you.

Why not offer something that is better than what we have now?

[myrkul]

1. Arbitration requires enforcement.  What do you do when someone refuses to accept the outcome?  Or even refuses to accept arbitration at all?  To be useful, it has be have enforcement.  Ultimately, that means a threat of violence.  If your defence companies are not going to do the enforcement, who will?

I have already explained this, and your willful refusal to understand that is why I called you a moron. You said it yourself, without protection, you will die. Refuse arbitration, and you refuse protection.

2. Arguing over whether or not defence companies that gang up and destroy a smaller defence company are defending or attacking is semantics.  They are applying violence.  Their competitor will be destroyed and they will take over its territory/client base.  Every dispute that results in violence will eliminate a defence company.  You end up with 1.  That one firm will be able to set whatever rate it wants and anyone who fails to pay will suffer.

If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or are you defending? Answer that. It is important, I assure you. Initiating force is against the NAP, responding in kind is not.

The winning agencies do not "take over" their foes territory or client base. The clients will be free to choose another agency, or to defend themselves, just as they were before. In fact, it's likely that those clients will abandon the attacking agency as soon as their actions become well known, making the reprisal unnecessary.

Why not offer something that is better than what we have now?

The weird thing is, I am, and you refuse to see it. If court is always better, why are so many companies putting agreements to arbitration in their employment contracts?

[Hawker]

1. Arbitration requires enforcement.  What do you do when someone refuses to accept the outcome?  Or even refuses to accept arbitration at all?  To be useful, it has be have enforcement.  Ultimately, that means a threat of violence.  If your defence companies are not going to do the enforcement, who will?

I have already explained this, and your willful refusal to understand that is why I called you a moron. You said it yourself, without protection, you will die. Refuse arbitration, and you refuse protection.

2. Arguing over whether or not defence companies that gang up and destroy a smaller defence company are defending or attacking is semantics.  They are applying violence.  Their competitor will be destroyed and they will take over its territory/client base.  Every dispute that results in violence will eliminate a defence company.  You end up with 1.  That one firm will be able to set whatever rate it wants and anyone who fails to pay will suffer.

If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or are you defending? Answer that. It is important, I assure you. Initiating force is against the NAP, responding in kind is not.

The winning agencies do not "take over" their foes territory or client base. The clients will be free to choose another agency, or to defend themselves, just as they were before. In fact, it's likely that those clients will abandon the attacking agency as soon as their actions become well known, making the reprisal unnecessary.

Why not offer something that is better than what we have now?

The weird thing is, I am, and you refuse to see it. If court is always better, why are so many companies putting agreements to arbitration in their employment contracts?

If I have a contract with a defence company, it will protect me.  Arbitration is not required.

Companies prefer arbitration to court action as it gives them more power.  

Your whole concept of the NAP is that people won't do business with companies that initiate force.  Come to London - see the oligarchs, the sheiks and the dictators get first class service.  In the real world, if the bad guy has money, no-one cares about his character.

[myrkul]

If I have a contract with a defence company, it will protect me.  Arbitration is not required.

If you refuse arbitration, you break a contract. If you break one contract, you'll break all the others. Your defense agency's included. No arbitration, no protection.

Companies prefer arbitration to court action as it gives them more power. 

But you said "always". That's a big claim to uphold. So is it always, or is it preferable in some instances?

And I'm still waiting for an answer to this: If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or defending?

[Hawker]

If I have a contract with a defence company, it will protect me.  Arbitration is not required.

If you refuse arbitration, you break a contract. If you break one contract, you'll break all the others. Your defense agency's included. No arbitration, no protection.

Companies prefer arbitration to court action as it gives them more power. 

But you said "always". That's a big claim to uphold. So is it always, or is it preferable in some instances?

And I'm still waiting for an answer to this: If I attack you, and you and your buddies fight back, are you attacking, or defending?

I am a high net worth individual.  I will either own my own defence agency or have a contract for so many properties that they will be begging for my business.  Take a walk around London and you see the oligarchs, the dictators and the sheikhs all with private security escorts.  You really think they are somehow ethical in London despite being tyrants in their own countries?  Money talks.

If you and I both believe that we own the same thing, then who is attacking and who is defending is a moot point.  I'd own my own defence agency and my own arbitration firm.  I would always say that (1) you refused arbitration and (2) you are the attacker.  I'm therefore justified in using my defence agency to take what I want off you.

[myrkul]

Money talks.

This is your entire argument. Troll. Harder.

[Hawker]

Money talks.

This is your entire argument. Troll. Harder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Either make a rational argument or admit you are wrong.

[myrkul]

Either make a rational argument or admit you are wrong.


Back at ya. "money talks" is not an argument.

[Hawker]

Either make a rational argument or admit you are wrong.


Back at ya. "money talks" is not an argument.

I am a high net worth individual.  I will either own my own defence agency or have a contract for so many properties that they will be begging for my business.  Take a walk around London and you see the oligarchs, the dictators and the sheikhs all with private security escorts.  You really think they are somehow ethical in London despite being tyrants in their own countries?  Money talks.

If you and I both believe that we own the same thing, then who is attacking and who is defending is a moot point.  I'd own my own defence agency and my own arbitration firm.  I would always say that (1) you refused arbitration and (2) you are the attacker.  I'm therefore justified in using my defence agency to take what I want off you.

[myrkul]

Money talks is not an argument.