What's so special about the NAP?

[Hawker]

...snip...

...snip...

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.

Wow.  Very much a minority thing then if it excludes "normal" families.

[myrkul]

...snip...

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.

Wow.  Very much a minority thing then if it excludes people who are employed. 

Sorry, forgot to take into account how much of your head is granite. Let me highlight the things I meant:

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?

[Hawker]

...snip...

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.

Wow.  Very much a minority thing then if it excludes people who are employed. 

Sorry, forgot to take into account how much of your head is granite. Let me highlight the things I meant:

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?

Yup.  The normal stuff Joe Sixpack does.  Working, taxes deducted from his salary, kids going to the local school and so on.  Calling himself an "agorist" doesn't mean much.

[myrkul]

Yup.  The normal stuff Joe Sixpack does.  Working, taxes deducted from his salary, kids going to the local school and so on.  Calling himself an "agorist" doesn't mean much.

It means he does not have the taxes deducted from his salary, or avoids work where they take taxes out automatically, does not, if he can avoid it, send his children to the local school, and otherwise lives and works counter-economically.

[Hawker]

Yup.  The normal stuff Joe Sixpack does.  Working, taxes deducted from his salary, kids going to the local school and so on.  Calling himself an "agorist" doesn't mean much.

It means he does not have the taxes deducted from his salary, or avoids work where they take taxes out automatically, does not, if he can avoid it, send his children to the local school, and otherwise lives and works counter-economically.

Well you are drifting off into an alternate reality where factory payrolls don't deduct taxes and I am drifting off to the pub. The NAP seems a lot less sinister today since it means you respect other people's existing rights. 

[myrkul]

Yup.  The normal stuff Joe Sixpack does.  Working, taxes deducted from his salary, kids going to the local school and so on.  Calling himself an "agorist" doesn't mean much.

It means he does not have the taxes deducted from his salary, or avoids work where they take taxes out automatically, does not, if he can avoid it, send his children to the local school, and otherwise lives and works counter-economically.

Well you are drifting off into an alternate reality where factory payrolls don't deduct taxes and I am drifting off to the pub. The NAP seems a lot less sinister today since it means you respect other people's existing rights. 

Remember those forms you filled out when you got hired at the factory, requiring you to declare your tax debt? All you have to do is tell them you don't have any, and they won't take out the taxes. It's surprisingly easy.

[fergalish]

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:

I read it. "A & B, in conflict, choose C & D to select E who decides." You still can't see the problem. Forget it.

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?

Correct. Are defense companies somehow impervious to one another? When RedDefense moves to violence against a subscriber of BrownDefense who has aggressed a RedHead, who defends RedDefense from (the much stronger) BrownDefense who will, of course, want to demonstrate how willing they are to defend their clientele.  REMEMBER, the society is bigoted and prejudiced against redheads; the brownheads would clap and cheer at the sight of redheads and redhead-lovers being burned at the stake or driven from society.

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.

Well, that's not really free market forces at work there, is it?  That's human compassion - the defense companies who, out of compassion, won't do business with the (wealthy) pimp, and the defense companies who, at their own expense, out of compassion and even against the wishes of their single male clients, will rescue the sex-slaves.  Try to explain with purely rational economic arguments, how purely economic forces in a purely free market will liberate slaves who have utterly no economic or pyhsical/military power.  Human compassion is not economically productive - that's why there are sweatshops, they *are* economically productive.  If you eliminate regulation of sweatshops and institute a market which heavily relies on compassion, the sweatshops will enormously multiply.  Then when you have explained that, please explain why private defense companies, or wealthy philanthropists, or popular social movements have not worked together to eliminate slavery in the admittedly many cases where government regulation and violence has indeed proved itself inadequate.

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.

You didn't see the "[/sarcasm]", did you?  You are assuming: 1. All drivers will care about pedestrians and pay for insurance.  2. All drivers will not hit-n-run. 3. All garage mechanics will refuse to repair damaged cars unless the owner can somehow prove that any victims of the incident have been adequately compensated (and that has to be ALL garage mechanics - even a single shady dealer will make a fortune from all the people desperate to replace their damaged fenders/bumpers).
Correct me: are these your assumptions?

I notice you avoided the question of automatic assault rifles with glaring subtlety.

[myrkul]

I read it. "A & B, in conflict, choose C & D to select E who decides." You still can't see the problem. Forget it.

OK, so you seem to have a fairly firm grasp of the concept. Why do you think it won't work?

Correct. Are defense companies somehow impervious to one another? When RedDefense moves to violence against a subscriber of BrownDefense who has aggressed a RedHead, who defends RedDefense from (the much stronger) BrownDefense who will, of course, want to demonstrate how willing they are to defend their clientele.  REMEMBER, the society is bigoted and prejudiced against redheads; the brownheads would clap and cheer at the sight of redheads and redhead-lovers being burned at the stake or driven from society.

No, you did not specify the society was bigoted and prejudiced, you said that one agency was. If society is bigoted, there's not much any system can do to stop it, and most will simply enshrine it in law. REMEMBER, in a NAP-respecting society, defense agencies do not fight each other, since they recognize that war is expensive, and peaceful solutions are cheaper. Arbitration is much preferable to losing men and materiel in conflict with another defense agency.

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.

Well, that's not really free market forces at work there, is it?  That's human compassion - the defense companies who, out of compassion, won't do business with the (wealthy) pimp, and the defense companies who, at their own expense, out of compassion and even against the wishes of their single male clients, will rescue the sex-slaves.  Try to explain with purely rational economic arguments, how purely economic forces in a purely free market will liberate slaves who have utterly no economic or pyhsical/military power.  Human compassion is not economically productive - that's why there are sweatshops, they *are* economically productive.  If you eliminate regulation of sweatshops and institute a market which heavily relies on compassion, the sweatshops will enormously multiply.  Then when you have explained that, please explain why private defense companies, or wealthy philanthropists, or popular social movements have not worked together to eliminate slavery in the admittedly many cases where government regulation and violence has indeed proved itself inadequate.

I said at the outset that I had no economic arguments to refute it. Did you miss that? NAP, however says that involuntary servitude is aggression, and if defense is requested for the slave - whoever requests it - it will be granted. Where the bill goes is for someone to decide after the fact.

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.

You didn't see the "[/sarcasm]", did you?  You are assuming: 1. All drivers will care about pedestrians and pay for insurance.  2. All drivers will not hit-n-run. 3. All garage mechanics will refuse to repair damaged cars unless the owner can somehow prove that any victims of the incident have been adequately compensated (and that has to be ALL garage mechanics - even a single shady dealer will make a fortune from all the people desperate to replace their damaged fenders/bumpers).
Correct me: are these your assumptions?

1. All drivers (or at least most) will care about not paying their entire bill when they have an accident, and buy insurance.
2. Most drivers will not hit-and-run, and those that do can be tracked down. Happens all the time, today.
3. Most garage mechanics will require cash or insurance up-front, and the shady ones are liable to be more expensive.

I notice you avoided the question of automatic assault rifles with glaring subtlety.

I skipped it, because it was not directly addressed to me, and there were several questions which were. If you'd like, I can address it now, however.

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.

Someone walking along the road with an assault rifle is not an immediate threat. Someone pointing an assault rifle at you is. Unless MoonShadow is actively aiming the assault rifle at them, no, they would not be justified in immediately, violently defending themselves against him.

[fergalish]

If society is bigoted, there's not much any system can do to stop it, and most will simply enshrine it in law. REMEMBER, in a NAP-respecting society, defense agencies do not fight each other, since they recognize that war is expensive, and peaceful solutions are cheaper. Arbitration is much preferable to losing men and materiel in conflict with another defense agency.

I'd ask who arbitrates when defense companies differ but we've been there before.   But, I'm glad you agree, NAP is not suitable for a bigoted society in which some persecuted minority wishes to peaceably live.  Now, the question is, is there any society (let's say, "country") where that is NOT the case?

I said at the outset that I had no economic arguments to refute it. Did you miss that? NAP, however says that involuntary servitude is aggression, and if defense is requested for the slave - whoever requests it - it will be granted. Where the bill goes is for someone to decide after the fact.

Sorry, no I hadn't missed it, it slipped my mind. So a slave need merely request assistance and, in your words, "it will be granted".  Is that *guaranteed*?  Suppose a sex-slave says "help, get me out of here" to one of her pimp's clients?  But, more simply, until such a time as some wealthy and powerful philanthropic entity decides to eliminate slavery for no benefit of its own, a NAP society will tolerate slavery; again in the sense that it will not actively eliminate it. True or false?

1. All drivers (or at least most) will care about not paying their entire bill when they have an accident, and buy insurance.
2. Most drivers will not hit-and-run, and those that do can be tracked down. Happens all the time, today.
3. Most garage mechanics will require cash or insurance up-front, and the shady ones are liable to be more expensive.

1. No bills to pay if you hit-n-run.  See 3.
2. Yes they are tracked down thanks to a national obligatory system of registered license plates, paint layer patterns, national and international police forces and forensic departments, etc etc etc.  Without all this taxation-funded policing, the number of hit-n-runs could only increase.
3. Well if someone does a hit-n-run, they'll certainly be well disposed to pay more for repairs.  After all they'll be saving by not paying for insurance - it's merely sufficient for the shady garage repairs to cost less than the insurance for it to be economically rational for an individual to avoid insurance, to hit-n-run, and to go to shady garages for repairs.  And the repairs WILL cost less than the insurance, on average, simply because they will not have to pay compensation to victims.

...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.

Someone walking along the road with an assault rifle is not an immediate threat. Someone pointing an assault rifle at you is. Unless MoonShadow is actively aiming the assault rifle at them, no, they would not be justified in immediately, violently defending themselves against him.

Is that your opinion?  Or is that somehow, like Moonshadow thought, a non-arbitrary definition?  Just to be clear: I disagree, so what you say can only be your opinion. I genuinely would be scared shitless if I saw some random stranger walking down the road carrying an A.A.R.  I would *very definitely* consider it a direct threat to my safety, and would *very definitely* hit him very hard over the head with an iron bar if I thought I could do so safely.  I would then disarm him, and confiscate or destroy the weapons.  How exactly is this not consistent with the NAP, given that I genuinely perceive a threat to my safety?

[myrkul]

If society is bigoted, there's not much any system can do to stop it, and most will simply enshrine it in law. REMEMBER, in a NAP-respecting society, defense agencies do not fight each other, since they recognize that war is expensive, and peaceful solutions are cheaper. Arbitration is much preferable to losing men and materiel in conflict with another defense agency.

I'd ask who arbitrates when defense companies differ but we've been there before.   But, I'm glad you agree, NAP is not suitable for a bigoted society in which some persecuted minority wishes to peaceably live.  Now, the question is, is there any society (let's say, "country") where that is NOT the case?

As I said, there's not much any system can do when the majority of a society is bigoted against a particular group, and most will even enshrine that bigotry into law. Of the options I am aware of, NAP handles it best: You may hate them all you like, and you may refuse to deal with them, but you may not aggress against them.

I said at the outset that I had no economic arguments to refute it. Did you miss that? NAP, however says that involuntary servitude is aggression, and if defense is requested for the slave - whoever requests it - it will be granted. Where the bill goes is for someone to decide after the fact.

Sorry, no I hadn't missed it, it slipped my mind. So a slave need merely request assistance and, in your words, "it will be granted".  Is that *guaranteed*?  Suppose a sex-slave says "help, get me out of here" to one of her pimp's clients?  But, more simply, until such a time as some wealthy and powerful philanthropic entity decides to eliminate slavery for no benefit of its own, a NAP society will tolerate slavery; again in the sense that it will not actively eliminate it. True or false?

False. Any person who sees slavery, and finds it abhorrent, can begin the process of ending that particular instantiation of it, in much the same way as it is handled today. The primary difference being that rather than calling the police, he will call his police. Keep in mind that prostitution itself will not be illegal, so if a john is asked by the woman to save her, there is nothing stopping him (aside from his prior knowledge that this was a slave brothel) from acting on it.

1. All drivers (or at least most) will care about not paying their entire bill when they have an accident, and buy insurance.
2. Most drivers will not hit-and-run, and those that do can be tracked down. Happens all the time, today.
3. Most garage mechanics will require cash or insurance up-front, and the shady ones are liable to be more expensive.

1. No bills to pay if you hit-n-run.  See 3.
2. Yes they are tracked down thanks to a national obligatory system of registered license plates, paint layer patterns, national and international police forces and forensic departments, etc etc etc.  Without all this taxation-funded policing, the number of hit-n-runs could only increase.
3. Well if someone does a hit-n-run, they'll certainly be well disposed to pay more for repairs.  After all they'll be saving by not paying for insurance - it's merely sufficient for the shady garage repairs to cost less than the insurance for it to be economically rational for an individual to avoid insurance, to hit-n-run, and to go to shady garages for repairs.  And the repairs WILL cost less than the insurance, on average, simply because they will not have to pay compensation to victims.

I think you are not factoring all risks that the shady repair man is taking, but you are also forgetting that the insurance company pays the damages to the pedestrian, as well as to the car, and all the driver pays is the premiums. The insurance agency would have significant incentive to do the tracking, and there are no laws mandating tire treads, or paint layer patterns. Only databases in law enforcement agencies hands, and there's no reason that those databases would disappear, only change hands to the protection agencies, or even the insurance agencies themselves.

...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.

Someone walking along the road with an assault rifle is not an immediate threat. Someone pointing an assault rifle at you is. Unless MoonShadow is actively aiming the assault rifle at them, no, they would not be justified in immediately, violently defending themselves against him.

Is that your opinion?  Or is that somehow, like Moonshadow thought, a non-arbitrary definition?  Just to be clear: I disagree, so what you say can only be your opinion. I genuinely would be scared shitless if I saw some random stranger walking down the road carrying an A.A.R.  I would *very definitely* consider it a direct threat to my safety, and would *very definitely* hit him very hard over the head with an iron bar if I thought I could do so safely.  I would then disarm him, and confiscate or destroy the weapons.  How exactly is this not consistent with the NAP, given that I genuinely perceive a threat to my safety?

Even if it was this random stranger?


How do you imagine the average Iraqi feels about that guy?

[asdf]

How do the victims who have no next of kin receive restitution?

Well, since you have now specified that Event Y is lethal, the victims don't receive restitution anyway. Those who are harmed by the death of the victim do. If you can find someone whom nobody is harmed by their death, I'd be very surprised indeed.

Would it not be better to try and prevent Y type events?

To be sure. A high enough restitution cost would make safety measures to reduce the chances of Event Y happening more cost effective. If the restitution cost is high enough, it might even stop Activity X, as "too risky".

What if most of society deems activity X to be unnecessary?

Just as Joel stated, that is irrelevant.

Also, consider that the victims will probably be members of a protection agency, which will have it's reputation staked on resolving the issue in a responsible manner; preventing activity X or seeking arbitration.

Remember, just because the government currently provides a service backed by force doesn't mean social needs can't be met without force.

[myrkul]

Also, consider that the victims will probably be members of a protection agency, which will have it's reputation staked on resolving the issue in a responsible manner; preventing activity X or seeking arbitration.

Oh yeah... derp. Forgot about that. Not to mention the insurance agency, who has to pay the death benefit to somebody...

[myrkul]

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

And here is an article which says the same thing, but in much greater detail:

http://c4ss.org/content/10691

[JoelKatz]

Is that your opinion?  Or is that somehow, like Moonshadow thought, a non-arbitrary definition?  Just to be clear: I disagree, so what you say can only be your opinion. I genuinely would be scared shitless if I saw some random stranger walking down the road carrying an A.A.R.  I would *very definitely* consider it a direct threat to my safety, and would *very definitely* hit him very hard over the head with an iron bar if I thought I could do so safely.  I would then disarm him, and confiscate or destroy the weapons.  How exactly is this not consistent with the NAP, given that I genuinely perceive a threat to my safety?

It doesn't really matter what you actually did perceive because only reasonable perceptions justify the pre-emptive use of force. Whether your perception of a threat is reasonable or not would depend on the full context. But if it's not objectively reasonable, it doesn't matter that you actually felt threatened. Someone might actually feel threatened around tall men on dark streets, but that doesn't justify using force against them.

[JoelKatz]

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 you want to try to make a reasoned case that "all property is theft", I'll be happy to listen to it. But you can't respond to a reasoned argument with "That's what you think".  My opinions are special because I present reasoned arguments to back them up. You are welcome to engage those arguments or ignore them, but if you aren't going to engage them, I request that you not pretend to.

[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 you want to try to make a reasoned case that "all property is theft", I'll be happy to listen to it. But you can't respond to a reasoned argument with "That's what you think".  My opinions are special because I present reasoned arguments to back them up. You are welcome to engage those arguments or ignore them, but if you aren't going to engage them, I request that you not pretend to.

My opinion is that Paris Hilton inherits the right to gazillions and inherits the right to vote.  Both are valuable rights and the vast majority of people would be rightly outraged if someone tried to take them away. 

...snip...
 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.

You have not given a decent reason why you are entitled to take either right away.  You just say you like one right better than the other.

[myrkul]

You have not given a decent reason why you are entitled to take either right away.  You just say you like one right better than the other.

No, the right to her "gazillions" is part of her property rights. Rightfully, I cannot infringe upon that.
Her right to vote, however, does tend to infringe upon my property rights. How would you propose we reconcile that?

[Hawker]

You have not given a decent reason why you are entitled to take either right away.  You just say you like one right better than the other.

No, the right to her "gazillions" is part of her property rights. Rightfully, I cannot infringe upon that.
Her right to vote, however, does tend to infringe upon my property rights. How would you propose we reconcile that?

Do remember that your property rights are legal creations.  Take away the law and you take away the property right as well.  For an example, talk to Palestinians who lost the homes in 1967 or to Armenians who lost their homes in 1915.  Once the state they belonged to was destroyed, they ceased to own the homes and farms that they had legal title documents to.

So, both her right to vote and her right to property come from law and there are legal ways to resolve any conflicts.  You have not offered a basis for taking either right off her.

[myrkul]

Do remember that your property rights are legal creations.

The founders of the US, and most, if not all, philosophers would tend to disagree. I'm not too familiar with pre-constitution law, or what has developed over yonder since, but I would wager those are based on similar principles, ie, that laws are instituted not to create rights, but to protect them.

[Hawker]

Do remember that your property rights are legal creations.

The founders of the US, and most, if not all, philosophers would tend to disagree. I'm not too familiar with pre-constitution law, or what has developed over yonder since, but I would wager those are based on similar principles, ie, that laws are instituted not to create rights, but to protect them.

They believed that rights came from God.  If you are religious, I can see how you would believe that.

They also believed that there was a need for a state.  If you are happy to accept that they were right about property rights, perhaps you accept that they were right about voting rights as well?  Or is their approval only relevant to the particular rights that are your favourites?