What's so special about the NAP?

[FirstAscent]

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

[myrkul]

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

Why do you assume I could not afford it? After all, I doubt even you will call government "efficient", and I can, along with my fellow tax victims, pay for their protection, along with all the other services I neither want, nor need, nor, in some cases, even receive (I'm not on welfare, or have a child in school, f'rex, but I still pay for it). It follows that if I'm not paying for schooling for other people's kids, or buying other people's cheese, I can afford a simple protection contract. It also follows that private companies would be more efficient, to say nothing of less aggressive, and thus cheaper, so I'd likely have plenty of money left over.

I should also like to point out that I am already the victim of mob rule and extortion. (voting and taxes, respectively)

[FirstAscent]

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

Why do you assume I could not afford it?

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

Furthermore, your flimsy and untested ideas suffer from two more big problems:

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Honestly, your views sound like those of an idealistic and very naive thirteen year old.

[bb113]

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

[myrkul]

Ever tried telling the tax man "no"?

Ever tried to live in your fantasy world and not be the victim of mob rule, gangs, and extortion without having to hire security forces that you can't afford?

Why do you assume I could not afford it?

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

Furthermore, your flimsy and untested ideas suffer from two more big problems:

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Honestly, your views sound like those of an idealistic and very naive thirteen year old.

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.
 
As to the "flaws", without "victim disarmament laws," the people can defend themselves, as well as get protection from the defense agencies. If you have a few minutes, you could read a fictional account of an invasion into an AnCap area in this excellent short story by Vernor Vinge, "The Ungoverned". The environment is a tough one, but a consistent response to environmental damage can, and in my opinion, would, develop. After all, there's no law requiring computer manufacturers to use USB to connect their peripherals.

Finally, It's interesting that you brought up my age. In my over 30 years of life, I have met several 13 year old people with more critical thinking and logic skills than you are displaying.

[FirstAscent]

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

I made a third point as well. It was in the second sentence of my last post.

Also, I suggest you study Herman Daly in depth.

[FirstAscent]

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

[bb113]

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

I made a third point as well. It was in the second sentence of my last post.

Also, I suggest you study Herman Daly in depth.

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant. I will check Herman Daly, but if understanding it requires more than a few sentences his plan is too complicated therefore it will fail.

[bb113]

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

I made a third point as well. It was in the second sentence of my last post.

Also, I suggest you study Herman Daly in depth.

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant. I will check Herman Daly, but if understanding it requires more than a few sentences his plan is too complicated therefore it will fail.

I really should acknowledge that I realize I act like an ass towards you, first ascent, because I don't get your viewpoints. But you do lead me to very interesting literature, and even if I never agree with you I want you to know I think I'm a better person for having come in contact with you.

[FirstAscent]

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

I made a third point as well. It was in the second sentence of my last post.

Also, I suggest you study Herman Daly in depth.

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant. I will check Herman Daly, but if understanding it requires more than a few sentences his plan is too complicated therefore it will fail.

Unfortunately, such an assessment and view is not supportive of progress when dealing with very complex systems.

You might want to read these:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

And more generally, Seed Magazine has some excellent pieces that are relevant to everything:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/in_defense_of_difference/

[FirstAscent]

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

I made a third point as well. It was in the second sentence of my last post.

Also, I suggest you study Herman Daly in depth.

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant. I will check Herman Daly, but if understanding it requires more than a few sentences his plan is too complicated therefore it will fail.

I really should acknowledge that I realize I act like an ass towards you, first ascent, because I don't get your viewpoints. But you do lead me to very interesting literature, and even if I never agree with you I want you to know I think I'm a better person for having come in contact with you.

That's rather contradictory. You don't get my viewpoints, but the literature I point you to is very interesting and makes you a better person.

[FirstAscent]

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

[bb113]

1. Vulnerability to takeover from a neighboring state.
2. No consistency in application with regard to the environment.

Very good points. These are the problems that need to be solved. How do we do it without killing people and/or locking them up in cages? This is what people want.

I made a third point as well. It was in the second sentence of my last post.

Also, I suggest you study Herman Daly in depth.

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant. I will check Herman Daly, but if understanding it requires more than a few sentences his plan is too complicated therefore it will fail.

I really should acknowledge that I realize I act like an ass towards you, first ascent, because I don't get your viewpoints. But you do lead me to very interesting literature, and even if I never agree with you I want you to know I think I'm a better person for having come in contact with you.

That's rather contradictory. You don't get my viewpoints, but the literature I point you to is very interesting and makes you a better person.

Yes.

[bb113]

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

[myrkul]

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

So, will you be addressing my points, or just acting offensive and insulting me?

[FirstAscent]

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

[FirstAscent]

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

So, will you be addressing my points, or just acting offensive and insulting me?

I've addressed enough of your points. At this point, I will largely ignore you, unless you post something that meets one of the following two criteria and I happen to feel inclined to respond:

1. A point that is worth refuting.
2. More flimsy half assed ideology.

I sincerely apologize for not attending to your needs in a more coddling manner.

[myrkul]

I am no different from anyone else in this country. They all pay taxes, to support the same teetering government. If I can afford it, everyone can.

Try not to be so stupid. Seriously. And I really mean that. Everyone cannot afford it.

So, will you be addressing my points, or just acting offensive and insulting me?

I've addressed enough of your points. At this point, I will largely ignore you...

Very well, at this point, I will completely ignore you. Have a nice life.

[bb113]

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

I don't get your point. The resources you have to devote to protecting your stuff grows with the value of your stuff. Noone really cares about robbing a homeless dude. So I would say yes.

[FirstAscent]

Second sentence of last post doesn't lead to anything that seems relevant.

Perhaps in a reptilian society.

Just quote the sentence.

First and second sentence of post in question:

It's irrelevant whether you can afford it or not. Can everyone?

I don't get your point. The resources you have to devote to protecting your stuff grows with the value of your stuff. Noone really cares about robbing a homeless dude. So I would say yes.

What about the guy who was serial killing homeless people? What about whole areas in poverty?