What's so special about the NAP?

[Hawker]

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.

You are hung up on force.  Its only one element of law.

Law is sort of like the rules of a football game.  We all agree to have a referee as we know that without him, we will cheat.  Think how stupid that is; you get up on a Sunday, drive to a match, get kitted out and start kicking a ball around in a game with rules you know.  You are playing with your friends.  Yet there you are insisting on getting a referee.

Likewise, people like having seat belt laws as otherwise they wouldn't bother wearing them.

[myrkul]

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.

Then why are we arguing? If everyone agrees that private property is a good thing, then it is.

You are hung up on force.  Its only one element of law.

Law is sort of like the rules of a football game.  We all agree to have a referee as we know that without him, we will cheat.  Think how stupid that is; you get up on a Sunday, drive to a match, get kitted out and start kicking a ball around in a game with rules you know.  You are playing with your friends.  Yet there you are insisting on getting a referee.

Likewise, people like having seat belt laws as otherwise they wouldn't bother wearing them.

I am hung up on force because it is how law gets used. Look at the root word of en-force-ment.

If people want seat belts to be worn, then they will wear theirs, and make their children do so as well. If they want to be on a road where everyone else wears seat belts, then they will patronize roads that require drivers to wear seat belts. If there are enough people who prefer roads that require seat belts, and not enough that do not, the roads that do not will not be able to maintain business.

To put it in your terms, I am not suggesting that there not be a ref. I am suggesting that we should get to choose which ref we will have officiating our game, and that all players must agree.

You've been fairly reasonable in this discussion. I'll remove you from the ignore list.

[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.

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

The difference between force and aggression is not a "semantical game".  It is the basis of the non-aggression policy.  This is the reason I keep pointing out that you don't seem to understand NAP.

[Hawker]

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.

Then why are we arguing? If everyone agrees that private property is a good thing, then it is.

You are hung up on force.  Its only one element of law.

Law is sort of like the rules of a football game.  We all agree to have a referee as we know that without him, we will cheat.  Think how stupid that is; you get up on a Sunday, drive to a match, get kitted out and start kicking a ball around in a game with rules you know.  You are playing with your friends.  Yet there you are insisting on getting a referee.

Likewise, people like having seat belt laws as otherwise they wouldn't bother wearing them.

I am hung up on force because it is how law gets used. Look at the root word of en-force-ment.

If people want seat belts to be worn, then they will wear theirs, and make their children do so as well. If they want to be on a road where everyone else wears seat belts, then they will patronize roads that require drivers to wear seat belts. If there are enough people who prefer roads that require seat belts, and not enough that do not, the roads that do not will not be able to maintain business.

To put it in your terms, I am not suggesting that there not be a ref. I am suggesting that we should get to choose which ref we will have officiating our game, and that all players must agree.

You've been fairly reasonable in this discussion. I'll remove you from the ignore list.

The problem here is the difference between theory and reality.  In theory we are rational, we agree to the rules of football before we go on the pitch and don't need a ref.  In reality, we cannot play a 11 a side team sport without a ref.  And its not the other players - you know that you will probably break the rules yourself.

I can see you find it hard to accept that half the population is like this.  But when you get used to the idea, things like social security make a lot of sense.  It compels the 50% of the population that are low on will power to save for their retirement.  There is no rational reason why they would not do it anyway.  They would be better off if they did do it anyway.  But they don't - they rely on the law to make them do it.  And any politician who hints at changing that system will be ejected from his seat.

[Hawker]

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.

The difference between force and aggression is not a "semantical game".  It is the basis of the non-aggression policy.  This is the reason I keep pointing out that you don't seem to understand NAP.

With respect, you are confusing things that the NAP is against with things that the NAP prevents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism#Further_explanation

In law theory, if the legal system doesn't prevent a behaviour, that behaviour is legal.  The NAP does not approve of lynching or abduction but if the victim has no defence agency, a NAP based society does nothing to prevent it.  So its effectively legal under the NAP.

[myrkul]

The problem here is the difference between theory and reality.  In theory we are rational, we agree to the rules of football before we go on the pitch and don't need a ref.  In reality, we cannot play a 11 a side team sport without a ref.  And its not the other players - you know that you will probably break the rules yourself.

/sigh...

To put it in your terms, I am not suggesting that there not be a ref. I am suggesting that we should get to choose which ref we will have officiating our game, and that all players must agree.

[Hawker]

The problem here is the difference between theory and reality.  In theory we are rational, we agree to the rules of football before we go on the pitch and don't need a ref.  In reality, we cannot play a 11 a side team sport without a ref.  And its not the other players - you know that you will probably break the rules yourself.

/sigh...

To put it in your terms, I am not suggesting that there not be a ref. I am suggesting that we should get to choose which ref we will have officiating our game, and that all players must agree.

That would be hard to make work in a game of football.  Utterly impossible across a city of a million.  Requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement.  You have to settle for a majority.

[benjamindees]

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I think it would be fair for those of you who are arguing against non-aggression, and who work in law enforcement, the military, or the courts to go ahead and disclose that here.

Because, it seems like over half of you are not really interested in having a real discussion, and are instead engaged in astro-turfing.  It seems like you are just here to defend the state's monopoly on force for your own, obvious personal gain.  And it's cluttering up the thread, needlessly.  Frankly, it's no different from McDonalds employees going on a recipe forum and trolling it in order to get people to stop cooking.  Well, no different aside from the fact that McDonalds employees actually earn an honest living, rather than extorting tax monies from the rest of us, that is.

So, are any of you honest enough to admit it?

[Hawker]

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I think it would be fair for those of you who are arguing against non-aggression, and who work in law enforcement, the military, or the courts to go ahead and disclose that here.

Because, it seems like over half of you are not really interested in having a real discussion, and are instead engaged in astro-turfing.  It seems like you are just here to defend the state's monopoly on force for your own, obvious personal gain.  Frankly, it's no different from McDonalds employees going on a recipe forum and trolling it in order to get people to stop cooking.  Well, no different aside from the fact that McDonalds employees actually earn an honest living, rather than extorting tax monies from the rest of us, that is.

So, are any of you honest enough to admit it?

Click on the shops in my sig and you will see what I do for a living.

People can disagree.  People can absolutely hate one another's ideas.  They can try to convince each other of their ideas.  Finding someone who disagrees with you does not mean that they are astroturfing and sock puppets.

[myrkul]

That would be hard to make work in a game of football.  Utterly impossible across a city of a million.  Requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement.  You have to settle for a majority.

You're telling me 22 people can't decide on which person they trust enough to let ref? Can 11? If each team picks a ref, then those referees pick one to decide any disagreements, would you agree that that is a fair way to officiate the game?

And I never said the whole city had to agree on one person to decide all their problems, and that would be unworkable, anyway. In practice, it can be as granular as two people agreeing that any disagreement they have will be settled by this other third person. The key word there is agree. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is not a fair process.

[Hawker]

That would be hard to make work in a game of football.  Utterly impossible across a city of a million.  Requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement.  You have to settle for a majority.

You're telling me 22 people can't decide on which person they trust enough to let ref? Can 11? If each team picks a ref, then those referees pick one to decide any disagreements, would you agree that that is a fair way to officiate the game?

And I never said the whole city had to agree on one person to decide all their problems, and that would be unworkable, anyway. In practice, it can be as granular as two people agreeing that any disagreement they have will be settled by this other third person. The key word there is agree. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is not a fair process.

That 2 wolves and a sheep thing is old.  The wolves decide that one of them gets to own the sheep and sell part of it to the other.

As I said, requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement.  You have to settle for a majority.

To put it in NAP terms, right now people have the right to vote for a government that makes laws.  A lot of the problem with your approach is that you act like that right should be taken off them.  Its their right and you don't have standing to take it off them.

On a more practical point, as I said about seat belts and I think you are now accepting, law sets a standard that people try to live up to.  That's why if you remove the prohibition on racial or religious discrimination, it will come back.

I'm off to the pub - there is only so much of this excitement I can handle in 1 day.

[myrkul]

All that talking, and you didn't answer this question... Come on, it's not hard to drop a yes or a no in there.

You're telling me 22 people can't decide on which person they trust enough to let ref? Can 11? If each team picks a ref, then those referees pick one to decide any disagreements, would you agree that that is a fair way to officiate the game?

[asdf]

If you are against NAP you are basically saying: there is a social problem, it must be solved by threatening people with violence. The point is that solving problems with violence is the worst way to do it.

Some people might not put seatbelts on for their kids. Do you:
A. kill them for not doing it. (this is ultimately the threat being made).
B. Solve the problem without using violence.

In a free market, social values are reflected in prices. Resources are allocated according to peoples preferences. If lots of people want kids to wear seatbelts and they think that it's worth the cost to achieve this, then it will happen through economic incentive. If they don't or if it's too expensive, then they don't value it enough to justify any action. Violence is for the intellectually lazy and the bullies.

As soon as you introduce force into the equation, values are no longer reflected in prices. No accurately, anyway; there is the bias of force influencing behavior toward a sub-optimal resource allocation. Instead of the market meeting the values of society, it is now forced to abide by the decree of some arbitrary opinion sanctioned by some politicians. Hence the phrase "an opinion with a gun".

If you see a kid without a seatbelt are you personally willing to point a gun in the fathers face and say "put seatbelts on your children or else I will kill you"? Do you think this solves the problem? This is the NAP-violating, state solution. The only difference is you have some institution doing this on your behalf.

[myrkul]

If you see a kid without a seatbelt are you personally willing to point a gun in the fathers face and say "put seatbelts on your children or else I will kill you"? Do you think this solves the problem? This is the NAP-violating, state solution. The only difference is you have some institution doing this on your behalf.

OK, Since I can hear the apologists'  teeth grinding from here, Let me cut the argument against this off before it gets started:

Yes, the state really is pointing a gun in his face and saying this. The language it uses is nicer, and does its best to hide that fact, but this is exactly what it is doing. Allow me to explain:

The police officer pulls you over, and stands there, and writes you a ticket. What do you suppose he will do if you refuse to accept that slip of paper that says you owe the state some money for breaking its rules? Will he let it slide, and let you be on your merry way? Doubtful.

So let's say you have this piece of paper now, which the state says means you owe them some sum of money. What happens if you refuse? You just toss the paper in the recycling bin, where it rightfully belongs. Does the state let it slide, and let you live your life? Unlikely.

So now you've told them to pound sand. They think you owe them money, you say you do not. What happens to people who don't pay fines? They get arrested, right? What happens if you refuse to come along nicely? Will they just close the door, and let you live your life? Yeah, right.

So now they've busted down the door and are trying to put you in handcuffs. You resist, after all, you didn't do anything wrong, you just told them no. Will they relent, and let you go? No.

Now, admittedly, this is an extreme case, and I know of several people who have been successful in getting traffic tickets tossed out by, essentially, telling the court to pound sand. It's literally not worth it for them to pursue. But you guys have said yourself, that a law that you're not willing to enforce isn't worth the paper it's written on, so where does that leave us?

[niemivh]

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.

Then why are we arguing? If everyone agrees that private property is a good thing, then it is.

You are hung up on force.  Its only one element of law.

Law is sort of like the rules of a football game.  We all agree to have a referee as we know that without him, we will cheat.  Think how stupid that is; you get up on a Sunday, drive to a match, get kitted out and start kicking a ball around in a game with rules you know.  You are playing with your friends.  Yet there you are insisting on getting a referee.

Likewise, people like having seat belt laws as otherwise they wouldn't bother wearing them.

I am hung up on force because it is how law gets used. Look at the root word of en-force-ment.

If people want seat belts to be worn, then they will wear theirs, and make their children do so as well. If they want to be on a road where everyone else wears seat belts, then they will patronize roads that require drivers to wear seat belts. If there are enough people who prefer roads that require seat belts, and not enough that do not, the roads that do not will not be able to maintain business.

To put it in your terms, I am not suggesting that there not be a ref. I am suggesting that we should get to choose which ref we will have officiating our game, and that all players must agree.

You've been fairly reasonable in this discussion. I'll remove you from the ignore list.

The idea is that Private Property requires Society to defend it via Law.  That's the point, that "Total Ownership" and therefore total "Private Property" in the mythologized sense that exists in Libertarianism, is a fallacy.

And it is impossible to have full consensus in any group, that is the recipe for anarchism, chaos and political gridlock where nothing can happen.  What, are we to relive the nullification crisis of the 1830s?  Or, if you like a resent example, relive the abject failure that was Occupy Wall Street, with their absurd notions of "consensus", which they only changed to 90% consensus after it had largely imploded.  100% consensus and 90% consensus are ridiculous notions for enacting a law.

[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.

The difference between force and aggression is not a "semantical game".  It is the basis of the non-aggression policy.  This is the reason I keep pointing out that you don't seem to understand NAP.

I won't have the argument go in circles.  Yet here you are, trying to put us back at "square one". 

If you'd like to respond to my larger post where I actually delved down into this NAP-shibboleth then do so, if not then I guess this conversation is over, but not for my willingness to have it continue - I'd very much like for you to attempt to answer my last full rebuttal.

[niemivh]

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I think it would be fair for those of you who are arguing against non-aggression, and who work in law enforcement, the military, or the courts to go ahead and disclose that here.

Because, it seems like over half of you are not really interested in having a real discussion, and are instead engaged in astro-turfing.  It seems like you are just here to defend the state's monopoly on force for your own, obvious personal gain.  And it's cluttering up the thread, needlessly.  Frankly, it's no different from McDonalds employees going on a recipe forum and trolling it in order to get people to stop cooking.  Well, no different aside from the fact that McDonalds employees actually earn an honest living, rather than extorting tax monies from the rest of us, that is.

So, are any of you honest enough to admit it?

I'm an overtaxed IT Administrator as my day job and work for a private company, my dear Benjamin.

Still avoided responding to my longer post, are you?

(You need to turn off the Alex Jones.)   

[myrkul]

100% consensus and 90% consensus are ridiculous notions for enacting a law.

Not at all. 100% consensus is the only valid way to enact a law.  Let's assume a government were run by 100% consensus.

Would slavery be legal? Surely not, because the proposed slaves would vote against it.

Would murder be legal? Surely not, even murderers would rather not be murdered, and thus would vote against it.

Would drugs be legal? Probably, because some people would like to take drugs legally, and thus would vote against any attempt to make them illegal.

Would robbery be legal? Surely not, because even thieves like to keep their stuff after they have stolen it, and thus, would vote against making it legal.

Would private property be upheld? Surely, for as you said, "we all" agree that it should be so.

[niemivh]

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I think it would be fair for those of you who are arguing against non-aggression, and who work in law enforcement, the military, or the courts to go ahead and disclose that here.

Because, it seems like over half of you are not really interested in having a real discussion, and are instead engaged in astro-turfing.  It seems like you are just here to defend the state's monopoly on force for your own, obvious personal gain.  Frankly, it's no different from McDonalds employees going on a recipe forum and trolling it in order to get people to stop cooking.  Well, no different aside from the fact that McDonalds employees actually earn an honest living, rather than extorting tax monies from the rest of us, that is.

So, are any of you honest enough to admit it?

Click on the shops in my sig and you will see what I do for a living.

People can disagree.  People can absolutely hate one another's ideas.  They can try to convince each other of their ideas.  Finding someone who disagrees with you does not mean that they are astroturfing and sock puppets.

Ben is unfortunately proving what my hunch was earlier, that he is completely over his head in regard to these arguments and therefore has to avoid the core elements of the discussion in favor of these methods of deflection and word games.  Ben, I could suggest about 4 dozen books you should promptly read which will much greater inform you on the state of world affairs (past, present and future), if you are interested.

I was a total Libertarian dupe but less than a few years ago and finally admitted to myself that I don't know shit and was earlier trying to rationalize and shoehorn everything I encountered into a much more comprehensive understanding than I should have admitted to myself; this was after the 2008 Ron Paul mania died down.  I think people should reconsider what they think they know much more often.  I try to do so every day now.

[niemivh]

That would be hard to make work in a game of football.  Utterly impossible across a city of a million.  Requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement.  You have to settle for a majority.

You're telling me 22 people can't decide on which person they trust enough to let ref? Can 11? If each team picks a ref, then those referees pick one to decide any disagreements, would you agree that that is a fair way to officiate the game?

And I never said the whole city had to agree on one person to decide all their problems, and that would be unworkable, anyway. In practice, it can be as granular as two people agreeing that any disagreement they have will be settled by this other third person. The key word there is agree. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is not a fair process.

When Libertarians actually start to discuss policy and procedure they get awful fussy and flustered relatively quickly, don't they?

The sunlight of actual truthful discourse (that is, Law and Policy) give them an easy sunburn since they spend so much time in their Ivory Towers they are quite pale and burn easily.

lol

 

(sorry, I have to be my own comedian at times)