What's so special about the NAP?

[niemivh]

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.

To the Libertarian mindset, the right to alienation, the right to death, the right to fail, the right to anarchy are not seen as the absence of things but actual positive rights to be asserted and defended.

[Hawker]

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.

Given that your last book directly contradicts the ideas that you are coming out with, no thanks.  I finish work in 90 minutes and then go for a drink.  I'm sure that if you have some way to get people to do without seat belt laws, you will be able to find it in the next 90 minutes.

[FirstAscent]

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.

To the Libertarian mindset, the right to alienation, the right to death, the right to fail, the right to anarchy are not seen as the absence of things but actual positive rights to be asserted and defended.

You forgot one: the guaranteed suffering, bullying, and desperation of many around you. These are desirable things to the libertarian.

[myrkul]

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?

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

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?

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

[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.

Given that your last book directly contradicts the ideas that you are coming out with, no thanks.  I finish work in 90 minutes and then go for a drink.  I'm sure that if you have some way to get people to do without seat belt laws, you will be able to find it in the next 90 minutes.

My last book? That would be Healing our World, by Mary Ruwart. Have you read that already?

[Hawker]

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?

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

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?

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

Are you American?  I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability.  The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

[Hawker]

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.

Given that your last book directly contradicts the ideas that you are coming out with, no thanks.  I finish work in 90 minutes and then go for a drink.  I'm sure that if you have some way to get people to do without seat belt laws, you will be able to find it in the next 90 minutes.

My last book? That would be Healing our World, by Mary Ruwart. Have you read that already?

Ages ago - bitcoin2cash recommended it.  But I was talking about Friedman.

[myrkul]

Are you American?  I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability.  The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

[Hawker]

Are you American?  I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability.  The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

Check your question:

...snip...

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

By what right does one man inherits billions of dollars while another inherits nothing?  Americans have the right to choose their government the exact same way. 

[myrkul]

Are you American?  I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability.  The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

Check your question:

...snip...

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

By what right does one man inherits billions of dollars while another inherits nothing?  Americans have the right to choose their government the exact same way. 

By what right do they intrude upon and violate my property rights, in the very sanctum of the most basic property I own, my own body?

[Hawker]

Are you American?  I assume yes in which case the constitution gives the ability.  The US is sort of a democracy now but even if it reverted to the 1800 laws, it still has the ability to regulate what you can and can't do with your own body.

I asked what right. You keep spouting about property rights, but do you really believe in them?

Check your question:

...snip...

Tell me what right gives them the ability to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, and I will gleefully become a proponent of democracy, and renounce this "silly anarchist view".

By what right does one man inherits billions of dollars while another inherits nothing?  Americans have the right to choose their government the exact same way. 

By what rihgt do they intrude upon and violate my property rights, in the very sanctum of the most basic property I own, my own body?

Are you asking me to read the us constitution?  The only part I really bothered with was the second amendment :S  Or are you asking why the constitution has any right to be treated as valid?

[myrkul]

Are you asking me to read the us constitution?  The only part I really bothered with was the second amendment :S  Or are you asking why the constitution has any right to be treated as valid?

The constitution does not grant rights. at best, it enumerates them. What about in your country? What right gives the people in London the right to decide what can and cannot be done to someone's body in Yorkshire?

[FirstAscent]

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.

Given that your last book directly contradicts the ideas that you are coming out with, no thanks.  I finish work in 90 minutes and then go for a drink.  I'm sure that if you have some way to get people to do without seat belt laws, you will be able to find it in the next 90 minutes.

My last book? That would be Healing our World, by Mary Ruwart. Have you read that already?

Perhaps you could summarize some of her more salient points? Better yet, start a thread on the subject. Either way, I'm all ears.

[myrkul]

Perhaps you could summarize some of her more salient points? Better yet, start a thread on the subject. Either way, I'm all ears.

The book is linked in the first post of the "Book club" thread, as well as in a later post. they link to the same file, however, one stored in my public dropbox. Any discussion of that book is welcome in that thread.

[Hawker]

Are you asking me to read the us constitution?  The only part I really bothered with was the second amendment :S  Or are you asking why the constitution has any right to be treated as valid?

The constitution does not grant rights. at best, it enumerates them. What about in your country? What right gives the people in London the right to decide what can and cannot be done to someone's body in Yorkshire?

The free market.  The ultimate free market is in the right to govern people.  Our states are what evolved when every form of governance was an option but only the winners survived.

[myrkul]

Are you asking me to read the us constitution?  The only part I really bothered with was the second amendment :S  Or are you asking why the constitution has any right to be treated as valid?

The constitution does not grant rights. at best, it enumerates them. What about in your country? What right gives the people in London the right to decide what can and cannot be done to someone's body in Yorkshire?

The free market.  The ultimate free market is in the right to govern people.  Our states are what evolved when every form of governance was an option but only the winners survived.

Well, that's an interesting position. Especially since what I am proposing is nothing but the free market.

[FirstAscent]

Are you asking me to read the us constitution?  The only part I really bothered with was the second amendment :S  Or are you asking why the constitution has any right to be treated as valid?

The constitution does not grant rights. at best, it enumerates them. What about in your country? What right gives the people in London the right to decide what can and cannot be done to someone's body in Yorkshire?

The free market.  The ultimate free market is in the right to govern people.  Our states are what evolved when every form of governance was an option but only the winners survived.

Well, that's an interesting position. Especially since what I am proposing is nothing but the free market.

The free market, unregulated, is not in everyone's best interest. It leads to destruction.

[Hawker]

Are you asking me to read the us constitution?  The only part I really bothered with was the second amendment :S  Or are you asking why the constitution has any right to be treated as valid?

The constitution does not grant rights. at best, it enumerates them. What about in your country? What right gives the people in London the right to decide what can and cannot be done to someone's body in Yorkshire?

The free market.  The ultimate free market is in the right to govern people.  Our states are what evolved when every form of governance was an option but only the winners survived.

Well, that's an interesting position. Especially since what I am proposing is nothing but the free market.

Indeed.  Paris Hilton and Prince William are rich retards but they have inherited the wealth and its theirs by right.  You can't just take it off them.  Your fellow American have inherited their citizenship rights, such as the right to vote for lawmakers who create social security and seat belt regulation.  You can't just take that right off them either.

[cryptoanarchist]

Ever notice the hardcore statists are usually Brits?

They seem to generally have a collectivist mindset. I know that's a generalization, but jesus, look throughout history.

What other nation has been as rapacious and violent at imposing their morality on everyone else? The British!

Imposing morality through FORCE is what statism is all about!  

Oh yeah, and they still have a queen who claims to be descended from the lost tribe of Judea. Kinda crazy? Yeah, they worship a queen...how's that for "hive-minded".

[myrkul]

Your fellow American have inherited their citizenship rights, such as the right to vote for lawmakers who create social security and seat belt regulation.  You can't just take that right off them either.

But that "right" violates my property rights. Which do you prefer, a society where property rights are respected, or one where the individual's "right" to force other people to do things they don't want to is?