What's so special about the NAP?

[Hawker]

Well that is the fundamental difference between being an ideologue and being a moral human being.  That the ideologue believes he has all the answers because every problem can be solved from the tenants of his ideology, the moral human being realizes that every situation requires different solutions and methods but knows good from evil and can choose the best solution in any given situation; that is if that moral human being as the humility to learn and the intelligence and wisdom to know the consequences of their actions.

I understand that every problem has a different solution, I just believe that resorting to coercion is never a good one.

These people have voted for politicians to enact things like Social Security, the NHS and seat belt laws.  Its how they need society to work.  Any scheme that ignores their need will harm them.

That's a bad thing, isn't it?

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws? And social security, if it is so strongly desired, can be structured as a private, voluntary charity, same as the NHS. there's o need to shove guns in people's  faces to force them to pay.

It will hurt them because they will be hurt without seat belts, without savings and without medical cover.  There is a need for compulsion - they know it and thats why they vote for it.

[1713440547]

1713440547

[1713440547]

1713440547

[1713440547]

1713440547

[1713440547]

1713440547

[myrkul]

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?

Because said people won't necessarily have their children wear seat belts. That's why.

Try answering this time.

[niemivh]

I'm talking about "true libertarianism" in which even the NAP is rescinded. You are truly free to do whatever you want. Rescinding laws until you're left with only the NAP is arbitrary. Give me a good logical argument why libertarians insist on maintaining a NAP, and yet insist on rescinding lots of other laws.  Or, alternatively, why libertarians insist on creating the NAP, yet refuse to create other laws.

You seem to be confusing laws with a principle

The Problem with NAP as a principle is that under NAP all laws therefore cannot exist.

I think NAP will allow laws to exist. They will be laws made by land barons, and these will evolve into nation states. Please read this post I made earlier in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg1010817#msg1010817

How so?  NAP is against "aggression" and Law will require enforcement which requires taxation (the first "aggression") then the law will be enforced (the second "aggression").

[niemivh]

Well that is the fundamental difference between being an ideologue and being a moral human being.  That the ideologue believes he has all the answers because every problem can be solved from the tenants of his ideology, the moral human being realizes that every situation requires different solutions and methods but knows good from evil and can choose the best solution in any given situation; that is if that moral human being as the humility to learn and the intelligence and wisdom to know the consequences of their actions.

I understand that every problem has a different solution, I just believe that resorting to coercion is never a good one.

These people have voted for politicians to enact things like Social Security, the NHS and seat belt laws.  Its how they need society to work.  Any scheme that ignores their need will harm them.

That's a bad thing, isn't it?

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws? And social security, if it is so strongly desired, can be structured as a private, voluntary charity, same as the NHS. there's o need to shove guns in people's  faces to force them to pay.

The Libertarian must always reference ridiculous "gun's in faces" canards because they need to fundamentally misrepresent power relations in society.

[FirstAscent]

How so?  NAP is against "aggression" and Law will require enforcement which requires taxation (the first "aggression") then the law will be enforced (the second "aggression").

NAP allows aggression against those who don't play by the rules when on the land of another. If you're on someone else's land in NAP-land, then you must abide by their rules. If those rules include payment of fees, taxes, and so on, then you must pay those fees, taxes, etc., or risk the consequences. Assume one consequence is simple forcible removal of your person from the land.

[FirstAscent]

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?

Because said people won't necessarily have their children wear seat belts. That's why.

Try answering this time.

I just answered. The answer is quoted above.

[myrkul]

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?

Because said people won't necessarily have their children wear seat belts. That's why.

Try answering this time.

I just answered. The answer is quoted above.

Oh, Sorry. Thought you were Hawker, there for a second. I should have realized that this sort of insanity was par for the course with you. Never mind, carry on.

[FirstAscent]

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?

Because said people won't necessarily have their children wear seat belts. That's why.

Try answering this time.

I just answered. The answer is quoted above.

Oh, Sorry. Thought you were Hawker, there for a second. I should have realized that this sort of insanity was par for the course with you. Never mind, carry on.

Nonetheless, there is a flaw in your seat belt discussion, and it's the children that will pay the price.

[niemivh]

My final statement on the matter:

I dislike racial discrimination. In fact, I despise it. However, as a believer in the Non-Aggression Principle, I cannot find a way to enforce any restrictions against it without violating the bigot's rights by forcing him to do business with someone he does not want to. I am also a firm believer in negative rights. One can have a right to be free from something, for example coercion, but not a right to something, for example my property. If a person can be said to have a right to be free from racial discrimination, unfortunately enforcing that right would require that one aggress against others, violating their right to own their property and actions. The right to be free from coercion trumps the right to be free from discrimination, because to enforce the right to be free from discrimination would be to give them the right to someone's property.

The way to fix one rights violation is not with another, more egregious one, but by offering alternatives. If you feel so strongly that you would attempt to make it illegal, instead, why not put that effort to good use and supply the discriminated against with the service they are being denied? Not only do they get what they want, you make a profit on the deal, and the bigot loses money. If you set up shop directly across the street, or even next door to him, and consistently undercut his prices, you may even drive him out of business, without once violating the NAP.

Aggression is easy, violence is the quick solution. Non-aggression is harder, but ultimately more rewarding. By forcing him to do business with those he hates, you have not helped the bigot see the error of his ways, you have only given him cause to hate you, too. But by out-competing him by doing what he refuses to, you have shown him that your way is better, and he will either fail, or change his ways voluntarily. Now, which is the bigger win, holding a gun to a man's head and forcing him to deal with someone he hates, or getting him to do it willingly, with a smile on his face?

This gets at the nature of a fallacy on Libertarianism that is something I have yet to fully elaborate on.

That is the fallacy of "Total Ownership".  That something belongs wholly and fully and soley to an individual.  I could make numerous arguments against this (philosophical, historical, legal) but I'll simply boil that down to this: that private property exists because we all believe it should exist and therefore enshrine that into law; because we believe (and I can elaborate the meaning of "we believe", if you'd like) that something that someone worked for should be theirs and their use of it should be whatever they reasonably would like to do with it.  Libertarianism seeks, not to discuss, but to remove any limits that the society that is collectively enforcing the protection and ownership of that person's private property of what they might consider reasonable.  Here in lies the problem, that the private property owner doesn't want any limitation of use of said property yet is in a contradiction, for he wants societies protection in defending and permitting for private property to exist in the first place.  Eat your heart out Milton Friedman, this is the original "free lunch".

This problem exists with everything, from literal "real estate" to money, even to (the most holiest of holies) gold (albeit perhaps to a lesser degree, but still nevertheless).  I can explain why, if you wish.  And why none of the private property arguments must pretend this fallacy doesn't exist in their doctrines, because to admit this would be the end of ideology and the beginning of an actual policy discussion.

[Hawker]

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?

Because said people won't necessarily have their children wear seat belts. That's why.

Try answering this time.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg1011246#msg1011246

[niemivh]

How so?  NAP is against "aggression" and Law will require enforcement which requires taxation (the first "aggression") then the law will be enforced (the second "aggression").

NAP allows aggression against those who don't play by the rules when on the land of another. If you're on someone else's land in NAP-land, then you must abide by their rules. If those rules include payment of fees, taxes, and so on, then you must pay those fees, taxes, etc., or risk the consequences. Assume one consequence is simple forcible removal of your person from the land.

But see?  In this fictional scenario we already have so many fallacies that I'm hard pressed to count them.  Namely the myth of "Total Ownership" which I just made a brief post illustrating the nonsense of it.

 

[myrkul]

Nonetheless, there is a flaw in your seat belt discussion, and it's the children that will pay the price.

"Oh, think of the children!" has been used as the marching slogan for all kinds of horrible programs. Parental responsibility is just as important as personal responsibility. You take care of your own damn kids, and let me take care of mine.

private property exists because we all believe it should exist

Well, there you go. We all believe it should exist. therefore, it does. No law required.

[niemivh]

This is basically an argument between a tiny minority imposing its will upon society "for their own good", versus individual freedom and responsibility.

Freedom allows for voluntary segregation, true, and that is what tends to happen in most societies.  But, if you want to argue extremes, then what you are arguing for is the equivalent of the Taliban.

And, as an American, I don't see anyone "forcing" segregation.  The only force I see, in American society at least, is on the part of the liberal Taliban, forcing integration.

Hey Ben, are you going to respond to my earlier post or...?

I was hoping you would try and rebuke some of my counter-arguments, or is that out of the question?

 

[myrkul]

It will hurt them because they will be hurt without seat belts, without savings and without medical cover.  There is a need for compulsion - they know it and thats why they vote for it.

So, the people that care so much about seat belt safety that they are willing to force other people to wear them, won't wear them themselves?

Sorry I missed this one, it got lost in the confusion with FA's BS.

[FirstAscent]

How so?  NAP is against "aggression" and Law will require enforcement which requires taxation (the first "aggression") then the law will be enforced (the second "aggression").

NAP allows aggression against those who don't play by the rules when on the land of another. If you're on someone else's land in NAP-land, then you must abide by their rules. If those rules include payment of fees, taxes, and so on, then you must pay those fees, taxes, etc., or risk the consequences. Assume one consequence is simple forcible removal of your person from the land.

But see?  In this fictional scenario we already have so many fallacies that I'm hard pressed to count them.  Namely the myth of "Total Ownership" which I just made a brief post illustrating the nonsense of it.

 

But that's my point about ownership. Hawk is really a nation and he has no reason or desire to extend the concept of ownership that he enjoys to Mike.

NAPsters have mistaken assumptions about ownership.

[benjamindees]

How so?  NAP is against "aggression" and Law will require enforcement which requires taxation (the first "aggression") then the law will be enforced (the second "aggression").

Law requires neither involuntary taxation nor aggressive enforcement.

Hey Ben, are you going to respond to my earlier post or...?

When I have a few minutes, yes I intend to.

[niemivh]

Nonetheless, there is a flaw in your seat belt discussion, and it's the children that will pay the price.

"Oh, think of the children!" has been used as the marching slogan for all kinds of horrible programs. Parental responsibility is just as important as personal responsibility. You take care of your own damn kids, and let me take care of mine.

private property exists because we all believe it should exist

Well, there you go. We all believe it should exist. therefore, it does. No law required.

Another slam dunk for the 2-dimensionally simplistic world that is Libertarianism!



When nearly all of society agrees and when it is the cultural wisdom and tradition of that culture then that meme (or whatever you want to call it) is Law.  That's fundamentally what Law's are and should be.

Again, this conversation has to be scuttled in order to preserve and cartoon world of Libertarianism.

[FirstAscent]

You take care of your own damn kids, and let me take care of mine.

Not if evidence suggests you're risking unnecessary harm by refusing to have them buckle up.

[niemivh]

How so?  NAP is against "aggression" and Law will require enforcement which requires taxation (the first "aggression") then the law will be enforced (the second "aggression").

Law requires neither involuntary taxation nor aggressive enforcement.

Semantical games fool nobody but children and the ignorant/stupid.

[niemivh]

How so?  NAP is against "aggression" and Law will require enforcement which requires taxation (the first "aggression") then the law will be enforced (the second "aggression").

Law requires neither involuntary taxation nor aggressive enforcement.

Hey Ben, are you going to respond to my earlier post or...?

When I have a few minutes, yes I intend to.

Good, glad to hear it.

That's why I returned to this forum, it's members repeatedly surprised my expectations.