What's so special about the NAP?

[Hawker]

It allows people to "outsource" the act of willpower needed to live a better life. 

Ever think that might be part of the problem?

There is no problem unless you want to take that away from people.  And if you are going to take away people's rights as citizens, presumably all other rights can be taken away as well.

I have no problem with them outsourcing their thinking, as long as they let me do mine.

Problem is, they want to outsource mine as well, whether I want them to or not.

I would point out, however, that it does seem to explain the first half of your point. They need the law to tell them what to do because they let the law tell them what to do...

And they are about 50% of the population.  That's why things like social security, the nhs and seat belt laws exist.  Its also why the NAP is fundamentally flawed.  Only a minority of people will be able to live as well as they do now.

[Hawker]

Before the law, 37% of people wore seat belts.  After the law, 94%.  That's over 50% of people who need the law to do the right thing.  

Since you know what's "the right thing" for everyone, perhaps you'd be willing to propose bans on other dangerous things people do that you probably see no significant benefit to -- rock climbing without ropes, skiing (some horrible parents even let their children do this!), and American football.

We are already suffocated by rules - we don't need more.  There is a huge difference between saying that the law-making system is legitimate (it is) and saying the specific laws are good ideas (some are not) and saying that the good ideas are well implemented (many are not).

[myrkul]

And they are about 50% of the population.  That's why things like social security, the nhs and seat belt laws exist.  Its also why the NAP is fundamentally flawed.  Only a minority of people will be able to live as well as they do now.

Once again, I am not suggesting that they be unable to outsource their thinking. Only that they be unable to outsource mine.

And as a final nail in the coffin of your argument, I present this:

You may or may not be aware that in the US, we allow states individually to choose whether or not to enact some laws, among them, seat belt laws. Well, New Hampshire remains the only state in the union without a seat belt law, and, well, I think the article speaks for itself: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/517088-196/nh-motor-vehicle-fatalities-at-47-year-low.html

New Hampshire has long had relatively fewer deaths on its roads than the nation as a whole, measured by deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The state’s fatality rate is about 30 percent below the national average by that measurement.

[niemivh]

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.

Do the historical examples of failure for things that were close to this model mean anything to you?  Or where they "doing it wrong"?

Care to provide some?  I was not aware there had been any. It's likely any failures are due to the fact that you can't force people to do something they don't want to, under this system, and unfortunately (for the government) that means taxes, too.

That sounds like manifest destiny of whatever you want to find in any system.  Outside of the 1830s Nullification Crisis and the Confederated States of America prior to the Constitutional Convention, how about the current events of:

*  Occupy Wall St.
*  The Indignados of Spain

Both of these 'movements' had a consensus model and both were complete failures in actually doing anything productive or effective in combating our present problems.  Can we agree that these movements were failures?  I think nothing could be more obvious, since the movements started to address specific problems in society that they did nearly nothing in solving - and, subsequently, is why they collapsed and imploded.

[niemivh]

Let me be crystal clear on what you should be crystal clear on: You complain on a daily basis that you are coerced violently, yet you are still here, and presumably without injury. Either you're being coerced violently, or you are not being coerced violently. If the former, present the evidence. If the latter, then man up, admit you're not being coerced violently, but instead bending over and taking it, instead of growing a pair and moving somewhere else.

If I was in your house, and breaking your rules, then I'd either leave, or choose to stay and fight, or adhere to your rules. All three of those options would seem to be indicative of some form of coercion. Regardless of that, it is clear that you have imposed a set of rules in your house that ultimately lead to coercion.

Violent coercion does not lead to injury if you comply (or don't get caught not complying). Since you compare complying to "bending over and taking it", I assume what you are doing, could be compared to bending over, taking it, and shouting to the rafters how much you love it?

So, finally you come out and give a (relatively) straight answer to my simple house scenario. You would consider me ejecting you for defecating on my carpet to be coercion. In that case, mind if I come over to your place? Oh, and do you have toilet paper?

This conversation seems about a hair's breadth from become a poo-throwing chimpanzee madhouse.

 

[niemivh]

Before the law, 37% of people wore seat belts.  After the law, 94%.  That's over 50% of people who need the law to do the right thing.  

Since you know what's "the right thing" for everyone, perhaps you'd be willing to propose bans on other dangerous things people do that you probably see no significant benefit to -- rock climbing without ropes, skiing (some horrible parents even let their children do this!), and American football.

Of course the difference is that he doesn't get to decide unilaterally what the Law is.  That's why there is a process for this, should I post the video on this?  How did the want to pass Laws that increase the public good translate into that person wanting dictatorial powers?



But he can surely try to pass this as a Law, and if the checks-and-balances of that system deem it not worthy of being a Law, then it won't be.

[myrkul]

That sounds like manifest destiny of whatever you want to find in any system.  Outside of the 1830s Nullification Crisis and the Confederated States of America prior to the Constitutional Convention, how about the current events of:

*  Occupy Wall St.
*  The Indignados of Spain

Both of these 'movements' had a consensus model and both were complete failures in actually doing anything productive or effective in combating our present problems.  Can we agree that these movements were failures?  I think nothing could be more obvious, since the movements started to address specific problems in society that they did nearly nothing in solving - and, subsequently, is why they collapsed and imploded.

Well, I was hoping for more historical references instead of unfocused "we don't like what we have, but wee have no clue what we want" movements. I'm not familiar with the Nullification Crisis, but the Articles of Confederation failed because of exactly the reason I posited... No tax revenues.

[FirstAscent]

You may or may not be aware that in the US, we allow states individually to choose whether or not to enact some laws, among them, seat belt laws. Well, New Hampshire remains the only state in the union without a seat belt law, and, well, I think the article speaks for itself: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/517088-196/nh-motor-vehicle-fatalities-at-47-year-low.html

New Hampshire has long had relatively fewer deaths on its roads than the nation as a whole, measured by deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The state’s fatality rate is about 30 percent below the national average by that measurement.

New Hampshire has one of the lowest percentage of people who wear seat belts among the 50 states. Their fatality rate may be low, due to the fact that they're very tough on other laws with regard to driving. Think how many more lives would be saved if more people in New Hampshire wore seat belts.

Also, please note that anyone under 18 must wear a seat belt while riding in a car in New Hampshire.

[niemivh]

And they are about 50% of the population.  That's why things like social security, the nhs and seat belt laws exist.  Its also why the NAP is fundamentally flawed.  Only a minority of people will be able to live as well as they do now.

Once again, I am not suggesting that they be unable to outsource their thinking. Only that they be unable to outsource mine.

And as a final nail in the coffin of your argument, I present this:

You may or may not be aware that in the US, we allow states individually to choose whether or not to enact some laws, among them, seat belt laws. Well, New Hampshire remains the only state in the union without a seat belt law, and, well, I think the article speaks for itself: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/517088-196/nh-motor-vehicle-fatalities-at-47-year-low.html

New Hampshire has long had relatively fewer deaths on its roads than the nation as a whole, measured by deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The state’s fatality rate is about 30 percent below the national average by that measurement.

I'll ask you, to what degree excluded from the Laws do you think you should be in the society?  If you could somehow opt-out of being subjected to seat-belt laws would you find it unreasonable that your insurance company could be informed of this and rates your rates accordingly with their statistics based on what an increased risk that poses?  If not, then why shouldn't they be able to raise your rates?  And if not, how does that not constitute you wanting a "Free Lunch" in Milton Friedman's terms?

With Social Security, how would you suggest to opt out of that?  As a child you were already covered if your parents died or other catastrophes that SS provides for.  So, to be fair, I think you'd have to pay back the equivalent of the coverage during this time-frame that could have been paid by a private insurer.  We'll net that with the balance you've paid into it and then send you on your way.  But later in life, when you could be destitute (either due to your actions or complete chance/misfortune) then you'll also have that badge that will dictate that you cannot receive any government assistance in this manner.  If it is a economic depression and private charity is exhausted (as it was and is bound to be before this crisis is over) then you can starve.

We'll ignore that the historical arguments for Social Security went (insofar as I am aware) at least to the 1820s and it is something that the labor-class (hint: your class) has fought long and hard for.  We'll ignore the statistical facts around this program and let you 'run free'.

What else would you like to "opt-out" of in our society?

[myrkul]

New Hampshire has long had relatively fewer deaths on its roads than the nation as a whole, measured by deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The state’s fatality rate is about 30 percent below the national average by that measurement.

New Hampshire has one of the lowest percentage of people who wear seat belts among the 50 states. Their fatality rate may be low, due to the fact that they're very tough on other laws with regard to driving. Think how many more lives would be saved if more people in New Hampshire wore seat belts.

Because they focus on stopping or preventing things that actually endanger other people? Imagine that! Think how much time and money the other states spend on enforcing seat belt laws when they could be stopping speeders and drunk driving.

[FirstAscent]

New Hampshire has long had relatively fewer deaths on its roads than the nation as a whole, measured by deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The state’s fatality rate is about 30 percent below the national average by that measurement.

New Hampshire has one of the lowest percentage of people who wear seat belts among the 50 states. Their fatality rate may be low, due to the fact that they're very tough on other laws with regard to driving. Think how many more lives would be saved if more people in New Hampshire wore seat belts.

Because they focus on stopping or preventing things that actually endanger other people? Imagine that! Think how much time and money the other states spend on enforcing seat belt laws when they could be stopping speeders and drunk driving.

So you agree then that you should be coerced (violently if necessary) to not drive unsafely?

[niemivh]

That sounds like manifest destiny of whatever you want to find in any system.  Outside of the 1830s Nullification Crisis and the Confederated States of America prior to the Constitutional Convention, how about the current events of:

*  Occupy Wall St.
*  The Indignados of Spain

Both of these 'movements' had a consensus model and both were complete failures in actually doing anything productive or effective in combating our present problems.  Can we agree that these movements were failures?  I think nothing could be more obvious, since the movements started to address specific problems in society that they did nearly nothing in solving - and, subsequently, is why they collapsed and imploded.

Well, I was hoping for more historical references instead of unfocused "we don't like what we have, but wee have no clue what we want" movements. I'm not familiar with the Nullification Crisis, but the Articles of Confederation failed because of exactly the reason I posited... No tax revenues.

Well, there were clearly a host of failures for the Confederation, as you had the States creating trade barriers with each other, no unified currency (other than the hyper-inflated Continental) and no government that had the power to do anything.

Did you ever attend either the Indignados or Occupy movements?  I did, I was at the Portland Occupy for weeks and saw the slow motion train wreck in which it was.  At the heart of it was the non-ability for: any leadership, any ability to effectively vote on anything, and any method for the priorities of the groups to be manifested.  Those with some iota of understanding (myself) into the nature of this crisis were drown out by: Ron Paulites, Zeitgeisters, Communists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Anarchists, and every other type from the grab bag of pop-culture dupery.  The movement was obviously created for addressing the problem of "Wall St.", that couldn't be any clearer; yet, here we are, and there is no new Laws enacted, no Wall St. criminals jailed, no Depression turned around, no new world utopia ushered in, nothing.  They accomplished nothing - and at the core of it was the straitjacket consensus model and the resistance to having leadership.  I saw it with my own eyes.

[Hawker]

And they are about 50% of the population.  That's why things like social security, the nhs and seat belt laws exist.  Its also why the NAP is fundamentally flawed.  Only a minority of people will be able to live as well as they do now.

Once again, I am not suggesting that they be unable to outsource their thinking. Only that they be unable to outsource mine.

And as a final nail in the coffin of your argument, I present this:

You may or may not be aware that in the US, we allow states individually to choose whether or not to enact some laws, among them, seat belt laws. Well, New Hampshire remains the only state in the union without a seat belt law, and, well, I think the article speaks for itself: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/517088-196/nh-motor-vehicle-fatalities-at-47-year-low.html

New Hampshire has long had relatively fewer deaths on its roads than the nation as a whole, measured by deaths per 100 million miles traveled. The state’s fatality rate is about 30 percent below the national average by that measurement.

Um, this is what happens when you confuse an example with a general principle.  The point is that people do like laws that outsource the act of willpower needed.  Seat belts could actually be fiery ropes of death and the principle still applies.

You are free to outsource the need for willpower as well; as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights, who could possibly object?

[FirstAscent]

Before the law, 37% of people wore seat belts.  After the law, 94%.  That's over 50% of people who need the law to do the right thing.  

Since you know what's "the right thing" for everyone, perhaps you'd be willing to propose bans on other dangerous things people do that you probably see no significant benefit to -- rock climbing without ropes, skiing (some horrible parents even let their children do this!), and American football.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303684004577507032803420796.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

The point being, you won't read an article that says:

"Billy was in a car accident in which he was fatally thrown through the windshield because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Billy devoutly believed in the principle of not wearing a seat belt. He died doing what he loved - not wearing seat belts."

Mr. Ybarra got a lot of positives by climbing and kayaking. How many positives did Billy get from not wearing a seat belt?

[myrkul]

What else would you like to "opt-out" of in our society?

Ideally, I would be able to opt out, or in, of any restriction, or benefit. If I chose to pay no "social security", I would get no benefit. I have no desire for a "Free Lunch". TANSTAAFL. If I choose not to wear a seat belt, then the insurance companies are welcome to raise my rates. If I wish to maintain that "safe driver" discount, I should keep my belt buckled. The point is that it is my decision, and not someone else's.

at the core of it was the straitjacket consensus model and the resistance to having leadership.  I saw it with my own eyes.

I would point, rather, to the unfocused nature of the event. Of course there will be no consensus when you have "Ron Paulites, Zeitgeisters, Communists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Anarchists, and every other type" all trying to agree. However, I would wager that internal to those individual groups, a consensus was reached about what should be done.

If 100% consensus cannot be reached, splinter until it can, each going their own way.

[myrkul]

You are free to outsource the need for willpower as well; as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights, who could possibly object?

But by forcing me to listen to the people they choose to, that is infringing upon my rights. Can you not see that?

[Hawker]

What else would you like to "opt-out" of in our society?

Ideally, I would be able to opt out, or in, of any restriction, or benefit. If I chose to pay no "social security", I would get no benefit. I have no desire for a "Free Lunch". TANSTAAFL. If I choose not to wear a seat belt, then the insurance companies are welcome to raise my rates. If I wish to maintain that "safe driver" discount, I should keep my belt buckled. The point is that it is my decision, and not someone else's.

...snip...

Some systems require compulsion to work.  People have the right to vote for the lawmakers who enact those laws.  Since that is a valuable right, you can't take it from them.

I don't see how you can get from where we are now to where you want to go.

[niemivh]

What else would you like to "opt-out" of in our society?

Ideally, I would be able to opt out, or in, of any restriction, or benefit. If I chose to pay no "social security", I would get no benefit. I have no desire for a "Free Lunch". TANSTAAFL. If I choose not to wear a seat belt, then the insurance companies are welcome to raise my rates. If I wish to maintain that "safe driver" discount, I should keep my belt buckled. The point is that it is my decision, and not someone else's.

at the core of it was the straitjacket consensus model and the resistance to having leadership.  I saw it with my own eyes.

I would point, rather, to the unfocused nature of the event. Of course there will be no consensus when you have "Ron Paulites, Zeitgeisters, Communists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Anarchists, and every other type" all trying to agree. However, I would wager that internal to those individual groups, a consensus was reached about what should be done.

If 100% consensus cannot be reached, splinter until it can, each going their own way.

You avoided my statement regarding your need to pay back the free premiums that you were getting (as a child) from Social Security.  Why shouldn't you pay that back?  Were you not covered during that time?  Should you not pay that back because you didn't agree to it?  Then, if that should be the standard, what should we do with children that may be destitute or starve do to no fault of their own?

Also, anarchy is the natural result of every person 'going their own way' and actually nothing in human interactions works that way.  Your friends, your neighbors, your family don't simply cut ties with because you have a difference of opinion.

I guess, my real question is, what is so wrong with the system of The Constitution?  Majority rule with individual rights protected.  What is so odorous about this system that we need to revert back to stone-age morality?

[Hawker]

You are free to outsource the need for willpower as well; as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights, who could possibly object?

But by forcing me to listen to the people they choose to, that is infringing upon my rights. Can you not see that?

You are inventing rights that are in dispute.  They already have rights.  If you can take their rights as citizens off them, then no rights are sacred.  Why stop there?  Perhaps the right to property can be removed as well?  Or the right to be a free person?  Or the right to equal treatment?

I can't see how you can justify taking people's rights away.  Leave aside that I think your idea is a prescription for a social disaster; in simple terms you want to take stuff off people that you don't have any right to.

[myrkul]

I don't see how you can get from where we are now to where you want to go.

Spend the evening perusing http://agorism.info/ Perhaps you will see, then.