What's so special about the NAP?

[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...

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

I'm up for quality discourse on real world problems with you. I just don't want to talk about simplistic and largely silly ideologies that aren't going to come to fruition anytime soon.

[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.

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

How do you defend against a serial killer? Areas could be impoverished for many reasons. I think it is in everyone's (rich or poor) best interest to limit poverty as much as possible.

[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?

How do you defend against a serial killer? Areas could be impoverished for many reasons. I think it is in everyone's (rich or poor) best interest to limit poverty as much as possible.

NAP increases the divide between the poor and the rich. Consider the following two interpretations of NAP:

1. Pay for how much service you want. In such a case, the rich get premium service and they can walk all over the poor. Result: the rich abuse the poor.

2. The pricing model is such that everyone gets equal protection for x dollars. In such a case, the poor pay a larger percentage of their income towards protection. Result: the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

[bb113]

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Personally, I think NAP fails because "aggression" is subjective and can be used to justify pretty much any behavior. Also, there will always be some organization that fills the "right to initiate violence" space. The question is whether it is better for people to live under the illusion that they chose who has this right or just let things work out how it will and deal with it. The end result would likely be the same for most people once the situation stabilized.

[Equilux]

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Income inequality is one of the many problems with a NAP i would say. Theft and violence are almost always highly localized and seldom spill over to other areas. Violence and theft are highly connected with poverty on all continents. This even means that the poorest people who need protection the most have the least access to protection and the fact that they need to pay keeps them in poverty like FirstAscent described.

[ShireSilver]

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Income inequality is one of the many problems with a NAP i would say.

LOL! Income equality would improve under NAP as poor people would have not only more incentive, but more opportunity to increase their wealth and income. In addition, big companies wouldn't be able to use the force of government to reduce competition and get special favors, so they wouldn't be as big.

And BTW, I haven't paid U.S. federal income taxes since 2006. It is possible to not pay them. (I'm still working on not paying property tax, but that'll take more work. I haven't paid them directly since 2009 though.)

[Equilux]

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality. On the other hand, the poor also have less to defend than the rich so there is less incentive for roving gangs to plunder the poor.... which isn't to say it is not a problem. OK.

Income inequality is one of the many problems with a NAP i would say.

LOL! Income equality would improve under NAP as poor people would have not only more incentive, but more opportunity to increase their wealth and income. In addition, big companies wouldn't be able to use the force of government to reduce competition and get special favors, so they wouldn't be as big.

And BTW, I haven't paid U.S. federal income taxes since 2006. It is possible to not pay them. (I'm still working on not paying property tax, but that'll take more work. I haven't paid them directly since 2009 though.)

How would income equality improve? I don't see a theoretical reason nor do any examples in the real world point to that conclusion. Infact quite the opposite. Current examples and historical examples most aproaching a NAP only seem to show a decrease in income equality. Even more clearly visible is correlation between inequality and the following other socio-economic problems, crime and violence, leading to even more inequality, making it harder to create or take advantage of opportunity.

[FirstAscent]

So, in your opinion, the problem with NAP is due to income inequality.

That's just one of the problems. It's biggest problem is it's logically nonsensical. In a society of NAPsters, who says that everyone must adhere to NAP? Who says NAP is the rule of the land? NAP would never get started unless a state said it was the the rule of the land, and even if everyone voluntarily decided it was in the absence of a state, the vacuum of power would soon be filled, and people would organize, and then you'd be back to a state.

NAP is a total fantasy. I've been saying that since the beginning.

[Hawker]

As I said, it accomplishes nothing.

Saying a thing does not make it true. The NAP accomplishes quite a bit. It establishes a moral framework to build a society around.

The Golden Rule did that 1000s of years ago.  The NAP does not represent any form of moral progress.

[myrkul]

Saying a thing does not make it true. The NAP accomplishes quite a bit. It establishes a moral framework to build a society around.

The Golden Rule did that 1000s of years ago.  The NAP does not represent any form of moral progress.

Do you live by The Golden Rule? Great! You'll fit right in in an anarchistic society. Every positive religion has a "Golden Rule," or similar. The NAP is secular, and not connected to any religious morality.

[Hawker]

Saying a thing does not make it true. The NAP accomplishes quite a bit. It establishes a moral framework to build a society around.

The Golden Rule did that 1000s of years ago.  The NAP does not represent any form of moral progress.

Do you live by The Golden Rule? Great! You'll fit right in in an anarchistic society. Every positive religion has a "Golden Rule," or similar. The NAP is secular, and not connected to any religious morality.

The problem is that people who feel morally superior to you and me do not "Do unto others as you have them do unto you" because they do not accept that you have the right to do "wrong."  That's why government exists - without it you have people enforcing their own morality.

[myrkul]

Saying a thing does not make it true. The NAP accomplishes quite a bit. It establishes a moral framework to build a society around.

The Golden Rule did that 1000s of years ago.  The NAP does not represent any form of moral progress.

Do you live by The Golden Rule? Great! You'll fit right in in an anarchistic society. Every positive religion has a "Golden Rule," or similar. The NAP is secular, and not connected to any religious morality.

The problem is that people who feel morally superior to you and me do not "Do unto others as you have them do unto you" because they do not accept that you have the right to do "wrong."  That's why government exists - without it you have people enforcing their own morality.

And by people who feel morally superior to me... you mean other than those in government?

[FreeMoney]

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

What? How did that happen? Where was the government?

edit: did the victims at least get the protection money back?

[FirstAscent]

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

What? How did that happen? Where was the government?

edit: did the victims at least get the protection money back?

The case has been solved. The killer can no longer continue his crusade. Unlike your fantasy world, where homeless individuals would continue to be preyed upon.

[nybble41]

The NAP is also a natural law. It states that no person has the right to initiate force against another person.

It might be more precise, or at least clearer, to say that the NAP is a natural law because it state that "no person has the right to initiate force against another person" while also having the right to not have force initiated against them in turn. In other words, if you do initiate force then others (the victim in particular) have the right to respond with a proportional punishment. Of course, this is what is generally meant by "one does not have the right to...", that one can legitimately be punished for doing so, but in this case it helps to make the symmetry explicit.

This is a natural law in the domain of logic, as opposed to physics. It is a natural law for the simple reason that if you can justify initiating force against someone else without provocation, they can use the same argument to justify initiating force against you, regardless of whether you're claiming that it is right to initiate force, or that it was wrong but you should be able to get away with it anyway, or that the rules are not necessarily universal... whatever argument you use can be turned back against you. No matter how you argue, the fact remains that you initiated force against a non-aggressor, and if you can justify it, so can they. If you can't justify it, then you effectively admit that you deserve the punishment.

[FirstAscent]

This is a natural law in the domain of logic, as opposed to physics.

Exactly. Which means it has no meaning unless people choose to abide by it.

Imagine: I punch you in the face. You cut my arms off because you don't care about NAP. What do I do? Then you kill me. That's NAP for you.

[myrkul]

This is a natural law in the domain of logic, as opposed to physics. It is a natural law for the simple reason that if you can justify initiating force against someone else without provocation, they can use the same argument to justify initiating force against you, regardless of whether you're claiming that it is right to initiate force, or that it was wrong but you should be able to get away with it anyway, or that the rules are not necessarily universal... whatever argument you use can be turned back against you. No matter how you argue, the fact remains that you initiated force against a non-aggressor, and if you can justify it, so can they. If you can't justify it, then you effectively admit that you deserve the punishment.

Well said.

[Hawker]

...snip...

And by people who feel morally superior to me... you mean other than those in government?

You need some real life experience of hatred.  Democratic government, even if its by a party you did not vote for, does not hate you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

This is hatred.  And when law and order breaks down, that is your new government.

[myrkul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers
This is hatred.  And when law and order breaks down, that is your new government.

No, that is a new pile of corpses on my front lawn. No monopoly on violence, remember? That means that peaceful people can defend themselves using whatever means necessary.

[FirstAscent]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers
This is hatred.  And when law and order breaks down, that is your new government.

No, that is a new pile of corpses on my front lawn. No monopoly on violence, remember? That means that peaceful people can defend themselves using whatever means necessary.

Which becomes a feud, ongoing battle, war, whatever. The winner takes over and then you have the beginnings of a government, state, kingdom, whatever.