What's so special about the NAP?

[JoelKatz]

That's a very heart-felt, if inaccurate, response.  But its avoiding the question.  What right do you have to take her voting rights off Paris Hilton ?  And do I have the same right to take her property off her?  Both rights are legal creations of US law and as such both have equal standing don't they?

No, they don't have equal standing. A "right to do what you wish with what is yours" does not have the same standing as a "right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with what is theirs". One is justly within one's scope of moral authority and the other makes a mockery of the concept of rights.

[Hawker]

That's a very heart-felt, if inaccurate, response.  But its avoiding the question.  What right do you have to take her voting rights off Paris Hilton ?  And do I have the same right to take her property off her?  Both rights are legal creations of US law and as such both have equal standing don't they?

No, they don't have equal standing. A "right to do what you wish with what is yours" does not have the same standing as a "right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with what is theirs". One is justly within one's scope of moral authority and the other makes a mockery of the concept of rights.

That's a perfectly valid opinion.  If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money?  If not, why are your opinions special?

[myrkul]

That's a perfectly valid opinion.  If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money?  If not, why are your opinions special?

If your opinion is that all property is theft, you are perfectly welcome to divest yourself of all your property. Your opinions can affect you all you want. It's when you start trying to force your opinions on others that it becomes problematic. If you decide to force "all property is theft" on her, you are violating her rights, in the same way that when she votes to tell me what I can or cannot do with my money or body, she is violating mine.

[Hawker]

That's a perfectly valid opinion.  If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money?  If not, why are your opinions special?

If your opinion is that all property is theft, you are perfectly welcome to divest yourself of all your property. Your opinions can affect you all you want. It's when you start trying to force your opinions on others that it becomes problematic. If you decide to force "all property is theft" on her, you are violating her rights, in the same way that when she votes to tell me what I can or cannot do with my money or body, she is violating mine.

Exactly! You are free not to vote yourself.  But you are not free to tell me what to do with my vote.  You certainly don't have any right to take away someone's voting rights any more than you can take away their property rights.

EDIT: it sort of bothers me that you keep going back to "natural law" type arguments.  Please remember the "Problems" chapter in "The Machinery of Freedom."  There is no viable natural law argument that leads to a commonly agreed set of rules.  People have been looking for centuries and as Friedman says, the rate of progress is very very slow.

[myrkul]

That's a perfectly valid opinion.  If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money?  If not, why are your opinions special?

If your opinion is that all property is theft, you are perfectly welcome to divest yourself of all your property. Your opinions can affect you all you want. It's when you start trying to force your opinions on others that it becomes problematic. If you decide to force "all property is theft" on her, you are violating her rights, in the same way that when she votes to tell me what I can or cannot do with my money or body, she is violating mine.

Exactly! You are free not to vote yourself.  But you are not free to tell me what to do with my vote.  You certainly don't have any right to take away someone's voting rights any more than you can take away their property rights.

Vote all you want. For your leaders and your laws. The beauty of the free market system is that when you vote in it, you get exactly what you vote for. If you rely on democracy, I may be in the majority, and disagree with you, and then I have voted for your laws and leaders, and your vote has been ignored.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Vote all you want. For your leaders and your laws. The beauty of the free market system is that when you vote in it, you get exactly what you vote for. If you rely on democracy, I may be in the majority, and disagree with you, and then I have voted for your laws and leaders, and your vote has been ignored.

Ah good, you have left behind the "natural law" crap and now you say that you have a better system.

On your substantive point, what you are saying is that we have to accept all existing laws unless there is 100% vote to change them.  Since that can't happen, it means that we keep all existing laws forever.

I don't think that's a good idea.  I'd prefer to be in the minority and see things change than have things locked in place.  Bad changes can get undone and if I in a minority now I can be in a majority in a few years.

[myrkul]

Ah good, you have left behind the "natural law" crap and now you say that you have a better system.

On your substantive point, what you are saying is that we have to accept all existing laws unless there is 100% vote to change them.  Since that can't happen, it means that we keep all existing laws forever.

Sadly, you are incorrect on both suppositions. My position is still based on the fact that you own you and I own me, and neither of us own any of the other. I do say that I have a better system, however.

And no, I am not suggesting we leave this wretched system in place, and require a 100% vote to change anything. What I am suggesting is to completely replace this idiotic monopoly with a market system, where each person votes for their laws in the same way each person votes for their chips (crisps, not what we yanks call fries). You go into the market, there is not one, but many different brands, and you select the one you prefer, and you get it, and the person who wants another brand doesn't have to fight you to get the store to carry it.

[Hawker]

Ah good, you have left behind the "natural law" crap and now you say that you have a better system.

On your substantive point, what you are saying is that we have to accept all existing laws unless there is 100% vote to change them.  Since that can't happen, it means that we keep all existing laws forever.

Sadly, you are incorrect on both suppositions. My position is still based on the fact that you own you and I own me, and neither of us own any of the other. I do say that I have a better system, however.

And no, I am not suggesting we leave this wretched system in place, and require a 100% vote to change anything. What I am suggesting is to completely replace this idiotic monopoly with a market system, where each person votes for their laws in the same way each person votes for their chips (crisps, not what we yanks call fries). You go into the market, there is not one, but many different brands, and you select the one you prefer, and you get it, and the person who wants another brand doesn't have to fight you to get the store to carry it.

OK but to replace this wretched system, you have to have 100% agreement.  Or do you get one "free hit" and then its 100% agreement required to change it afterwards.

[myrkul]

OK but to replace this wretched system, you have to have 100% agreement.

No, I don't. I simply start offering my system alongside the monopoly. Since it is better, it will win out in the market.

[Hawker]

OK but to replace this wretched system, you have to have 100% agreement.

No, I don't. I simply start offering my system alongside the monopoly. Since it is better, it will win out in the market.

Not in your or my lifetime - you may be right but it won't be fast.

[myrkul]

OK but to replace this wretched system, you have to have 100% agreement.

No, I don't. I simply start offering my system alongside the monopoly. Since it is better, it will win out in the market.

Not in your or my lifetime - you may be right but it won't be fast.

You may be surprised. It's already doing quite well in New Hampshire.

[Hawker]

OK but to replace this wretched system, you have to have 100% agreement.

No, I don't. I simply start offering my system alongside the monopoly. Since it is better, it will win out in the market.

Not in your or my lifetime - you may be right but it won't be fast.

You may be surprised. It's already doing quite well in New Hampshire.

I'm happy to wait that one out.  As far as I can see, your ideal is to be a model citizen and as such you will end up paying taxes to support the existing system.  At some point, you might take an interest in getting value for money for those taxes as well as planning for the day the state withers away.

[myrkul]

As far as I can see, your ideal is to be a model citizen and as such you will end up paying taxes to support the existing system.

...you didn't actually read anything on agorism, did you?

[Hawker]

As far as I can see, your ideal is to be a model citizen and as such you will end up paying taxes to support the existing system.

...you didn't actually read anything on agorism, did you?

I did.  It strikes me as laughable.  Lets say you are working in a factory and your wife works in a school.  What does announcing you are an agorist mean?  Not much really.

[myrkul]

As far as I can see, your ideal is to be a model citizen and as such you will end up paying taxes to support the existing system.

...you didn't actually read anything on agorism, did you?

I did.  It strikes me as laughable.  Lets say you are working in a factory and your wife works in a school.  What does announcing you are an agorist mean?  Not much really.

True, you have to suit deeds to words, or the words don't mean much.

[cryptoanarchist]

Being an agorist means you create and fund replacements for government services, like judge.me

[fergalish]

If I say my opinion is that "all property is theft" does that make it OK to take her money?  If not, why are your opinions special?

Because libertarians think the right to possess "private property" is written in the stars - if you think "all property is theft" then your opinion goes against what is written in the stars and your opinion is somehow... fundamentally... universally... wrong.  If, as a NAPster, you happen to disagree with the fundamental tenets of libertarianism, then you're out of luck. In fact, if you're anyone, and you happen to disagree with the geographically prevailing opinions of what is right or wrong, you're out of luck.

See how Myrul replied to me: he says if two conflicting parties can't agree to a court of arbitration, then they resolve their conflict by agreeing to a court of arbitration.  Silly me, why didn't I think of that huh. [/sarcasm].  In case you can't believe someone could be so self-contradictory in a single sentence, here's the quote:

When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: those that the people the two parties have chosen decide upon.

Myrkul, I actually wrote out a reply to this, but then erased it. See if you can figure out what my reply might have been, and then reply to it please. Then see how the discussion is going and do another iteration. If you still can't see the problem, then forget it.

It would be better to re-word it as "Local defense contractor will not defend clients with red hair" The obvious response, to an entrepreneur, is to open up RedDefense, a defense company that caters to the red-heads who are refused service by the first company. The rest is as I explained in the post you quoted.

Who caters to the defense of RedDefense, in a city where 90% of the people (including the big, muscular, well-armed and well-funded staff of BrownDefense, BlackDefense and BlondDefense) are prejudiced against red hair?

This is a fine point, and unfortunately, I do not have an economic argument that refutes it. But, of course, I was, originally, referring to slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the civil war, not sex-slavery. I would, however, point out that sex-slavery is aggression against the women so used, and so would not be viewed as legitimate in a NAP-following society. Defense of the women against their captors would be legitimate, and probably frequent.

I understand, of course - it's difficult to think of all possibilities. So, what you're saying is, all a pretty slave needs is enough freedom, by running away perhaps, to get out of her shackles and find enough money to pay a defense contractor who will beat up her pimp and his defense contractor; until then the NAP society will accept slavery in the sense that it will do nothing to stop it?

Crumple zones, if they indeed protect pedestrians, reduce the liability of the driver in the event that they strike a pedestrian. A car with such a safety feature would have lower insurance rates, and thus, be more popular.

Because suddenly, all drivers will voluntarily pay money to protect other random people, any driver colliding with a pedestrian will not do a hit-n-run, and all garage mechanics will voluntarily sign up to an ethical code of conduct and refuse to do business with, or accept money from, anyone who arrives with a suspicious pedestrian-shaped hole in their car? [/sarcasm]  [or... maybe... unslash-sarcasm... that *is* what the pro-NAPs think would happen?]

A society isn't incompatible with the NAP until you start saying that some people should (morally/ethically/legally) be able to get away with practicing aggression without fear of reprisal, and the system you described does nothing of the sort.

This completely ignores the fact that, for some people, there will be no fear of reprisal, and that's implicit, if not explicit, in the system I described.

Can anyone answer my question above regarding Moonshadow's post?  Briefly: Moonshadow thinks it's ok for people to walk around with automatic assault rifles.  Suppose another pro-NAP individual perceived this as an immediate threat of violence.  Would he be justified in immediately, violently, defending himself against Moonshadow? The presumption is that they happen to encounter each other under circumstances in which automatic assault rifles are neither explicitly permitted nor banned - there are no rules regarding them.

A last question for the NAPsters - I'm sure it must seem to you that I'm as stubborn and/or stupid as a bowl of thick porridge and couldn't see the light of libertarianism if it were shining from my own nose; just as you seem to me - you couldn't see the inherent problems even if you got sucked right into the black hole of libertarianism.  However, do you feel just as addicted to replying to my stupid posts, as I feel to yours?  I try... I try... I try... to stop replying, and I just can't. [cries]

[myrkul]

Being an agorist means you create and fund replacements for government services, like judge.me

How did I not know about that yet? That is awesome.

[Hawker]

Being an agorist means you create and fund replacements for government services, like judge.me

And as I said to myrkul, how does that help if you work in a factory?  You are paying taxes; your kids go to a local school; you will be taken to state courts if there is a dispute with you.  What does calling yourself an agorist mean to you?

[myrkul]

When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: those that the people the two parties have chosen decide upon.

Myrkul, I actually wrote out a reply to this, but then erased it. See if you can figure out what my reply might have been, and then reply to it please. Then see how the discussion is going and do another iteration. If you still can't see the problem, then forget it.

Since you apparently didn't read the paragraph I wrote explaining that answer, let me rephrase it:

If they can't agree on who to pick to decide their case, they each individually, pick someone they trust to decide the case. Then these two people, who have no connection to the case except that they were selected by the parties involved, select a final arbiter. Compare it to each side picking an attorney and then the attorneys picking the judge.

It would be better to re-word it as "Local defense contractor will not defend clients with red hair" The obvious response, to an entrepreneur, is to open up RedDefense, a defense company that caters to the red-heads who are refused service by the first company. The rest is as I explained in the post you quoted.

Who caters to the defense of RedDefense, in a city where 90% of the people (including the big, muscular, well-armed and well-funded staff of BrownDefense, BlackDefense and BlondDefense) are prejudiced against red hair?

Uh.... RedDefense. They are the defense company, remember?

This is a fine point, and unfortunately, I do not have an economic argument that refutes it. But, of course, I was, originally, referring to slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the civil war, not sex-slavery. I would, however, point out that sex-slavery is aggression against the women so used, and so would not be viewed as legitimate in a NAP-following society. Defense of the women against their captors would be legitimate, and probably frequent.

I understand, of course - it's difficult to think of all possibilities. So, what you're saying is, all a pretty slave needs is enough freedom, by running away perhaps, to get out of her shackles and find enough money to pay a defense contractor who will beat up her pimp and his defense contractor; until then the NAP society will accept slavery in the sense that it will do nothing to stop it?

No, what I am saying is that a sex slavery business will not be viewed as a legitimate one, worthy of defense. Should someone decide to liberate the slaves in there, likely, agents of the local defense agencies will assist them. And as to the slave not getting any help, she doesn't get any help in the current system unless someone finds out about it, either, does she?

Crumple zones, if they indeed protect pedestrians, reduce the liability of the driver in the event that they strike a pedestrian. A car with such a safety feature would have lower insurance rates, and thus, be more popular.

Because suddenly, all drivers will voluntarily pay money to protect other random people, any driver colliding with a pedestrian will not do a hit-n-run, and all garage mechanics will voluntarily sign up to an ethical code of conduct and refuse to do business with, or accept money from, anyone who arrives with a suspicious pedestrian-shaped hole in their car? [/sarcasm]  [or... maybe... unslash-sarcasm... that *is* what the pro-NAPs think would happen?]

Your response doesn't even connect rationally to mine. If crumple zones, as you say, do protect pedestrians, cars with them will cause less damage when they strike a pedestrian. This, in turn, will cause lower costs to insurance companies when such an accident happens. In turn, cars with those safety features will have lower insurance rates. This will result in a market incentive to drive in a car with pedestrian-saving crumple zones.

Being an agorist means you create and fund replacements for government services, like judge.me

And as I said to myrkul, how does that help if you work in a factory?  You are paying taxes; your kids go to a local school; you will be taken to state courts if there is a dispute with you.  What does calling yourself an agorist mean to you?

And as I said, being an agorist means, as much as possible, not doing those things.