What's so special about the NAP?

[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"?

[1713502610]

1713502610

[1713502610]

1713502610

[myrkul]

That would be hard to make work in a game of football.  Utterly impossible across a city of a million.  Requiring everyone to agree means that there can't be an agreement.  You have to settle for a majority.

You're telling me 22 people can't decide on which person they trust enough to let ref? Can 11? If each team picks a ref, then those referees pick one to decide any disagreements, would you agree that that is a fair way to officiate the game?

And I never said the whole city had to agree on one person to decide all their problems, and that would be unworkable, anyway. In practice, it can be as granular as two people agreeing that any disagreement they have will be settled by this other third person. The key word there is agree. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is not a fair process.

When Libertarians actually start to discuss policy and procedure they get awful fussy and flustered relatively quickly, don't they?

I'm sorry, Did you have something productive to add?

[myrkul]

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.

[FirstAscent]

If you see a kid without a seatbelt are you personally willing to point a gun in the fathers face and say "put seatbelts on your children or else I will kill you"? Do you think this solves the problem? This is the NAP-violating, state solution. The only difference is you have some institution doing this on your behalf.

OK, Since I can hear the apologists'  teeth grinding from here, Let me cut the argument against this off before it gets started:

Yes, the state really is pointing a gun in his face and saying this. The language it uses is nicer, and does its best to hide that fact, but this is exactly what it is doing. Allow me to explain:

The police officer pulls you over, and stands there, and writes you a ticket. What do you suppose he will do if you refuse to accept that slip of paper that says you owe the state some money for breaking its rules? Will he let it slide, and let you be on your merry way? Doubtful.

So let's say you have this piece of paper now, which the state says means you owe them some sum of money. What happens if you refuse? You just toss the paper in the recycling bin, where it rightfully belongs. Does the state let it slide, and let you live your life? Unlikely.

So now you've told them to pound sand. They think you owe them money, you say you do not. What happens to people who don't pay fines? They get arrested, right? What happens if you refuse to come along nicely? Will they just close the door, and let you live your life? Yeah, right.

So now they've busted down the door and are trying to put you in handcuffs. You resist, after all, you didn't do anything wrong, you just told them no. Will they relent, and let you go? No.

Now, admittedly, this is an extreme case, and I know of several people who have been successful in getting traffic tickets tossed out by, essentially, telling the court to pound sand. It's literally not worth it for them to pursue. But you guys have said yourself, that a law that you're not willing to enforce isn't worth the paper it's written on, so where does that leave us?

We've all heard this a hundred times and we knew you'd say it.

Consider: in NAP-land, you get the same result. As soon as you walk out your door and off your property, you're under the rules of whatever property you go on, in this case, the roads of other land owners. They have rules. Perhaps those rules are in regard to seat belts. If you don't abide by their rules, they'll fine you. If you don't pay, then you'll have to go to arbitration, as per myrkul's own admission. Tell them to pound sand, and it will escalate.

Ahh, but myrkul will tell us that members won't patronize such roads, and then the road owners will be forced to change their policies. Really? The road owners want to generate revenue. And they may have a monopoly. It may be a big monopoly.

Ahh, but myrkul will say that the people will be annoyed, and someone will come along and build an alternative road as an option where there are no seat belt regulations. Really? Where? You want more roads than is reasonable? You can only have so many roads, and duplicate roads just won't be financially feasible, as it decreases the revenue generated per mile.

Worst of all, there will be no consistency in rules and regulations.

Give me public roads and consistent laws - I'll take that every time.

[FirstAscent]

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.

But what if the question was: should slavery be illegal?

Would murder be legal? Surely not, even murderers would rather not be murdered, and thus would vote against it.

But what if the question was: should murder be illegal?

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.

If that's the question, then I'd say it would not get a 100 percent vote.

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.

What if the question was: should robbery be illegal?

Would private property be upheld? Surely, for as you said, "we all" agree that it should be so.

This is one of your greater weaknesses. You still haven't fully grasped the notion of property and property rights. Nor do you fully grasp the implications of property rights as you envision them.

[FirstAscent]

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I think it would be fair for those of you who are arguing against non-aggression, and who work in law enforcement, the military, or the courts to go ahead and disclose that here.

Because, it seems like over half of you are not really interested in having a real discussion, and are instead engaged in astro-turfing.  It seems like you are just here to defend the state's monopoly on force for your own, obvious personal gain.  And it's cluttering up the thread, needlessly.  Frankly, it's no different from McDonalds employees going on a recipe forum and trolling it in order to get people to stop cooking.  Well, no different aside from the fact that McDonalds employees actually earn an honest living, rather than extorting tax monies from the rest of us, that is.

So, are any of you honest enough to admit it?

This smacks of paranoia. There is no conspiracy here. Your suppositions here are actually pretty hilarious. And more telling, they indicate how imbalanced your view of the world is. The participants in this thread are not the big bad government you despise and fear.

I'm a software consultant.

[myrkul]

Consider: in NAP-land, you get the same result. As soon as you walk out your door and off your property, you're under the rules of whatever property you go on, in this case, the roads of other land owners. They have rules. Perhaps those rules are in regard to seat belts. If you don't abide by their rules, they'll fine you.

No, if you do not abide by the rules that you have agreed to, you will be escorted off the road and not allowed back on. If you do not agree to the roads' rules, do not use them. Even now, there's more than one way to get from point A to point B.

[FirstAscent]

Consider: in NAP-land, you get the same result. As soon as you walk out your door and off your property, you're under the rules of whatever property you go on, in this case, the roads of other land owners. They have rules. Perhaps those rules are in regard to seat belts. If you don't abide by their rules, they'll fine you.

No, if you do not abide by the rules that you have agreed to, you will be escorted off the road and not allowed back on. If you do not agree to the roads' rules, do not use them.

Sounds like coercion. I thought you were against coercion. What if you resist?

Even now, there's more than one way to get from point A to point B.

Untrue. When I go out my door, I am constrained by a certain set of roads before any reasonable choices present themselves.

[myrkul]

No, if you do not abide by the rules that you have agreed to, you will be escorted off the road and not allowed back on. If you do not agree to the roads' rules, do not use them.

Sounds like coercion. I thought you were against coercion. What if you resist?

Not at all. If you come into my house, and shit on the carpet, is it coercion for me to kick you out? Or even if you simply start swearing worse than a sailor with Tourette's?

Even now, there's more than one way to get from point A to point B.

Untrue. When I go out my door, I am constrained by a certain set of roads before any reasonable choices present themselves.

I believe left or right remains two separate directions, yes?

[FirstAscent]

Not at all. If you come into my house, and shit on the carpet, is it coercion for me to kick you out? Or even if you simply start swearing worse than a sailor with Tourette's?

What if I don't want to leave and don't like your rules? That's currently your situation right now.

I believe left or right remains two separate directions, yes?

We waste so much time with silly statements like the one you just made. So what if you can go left or right? Do you think it's a different road if I go left or if I go right? And last time I checked, left takes me one way and right takes me in the opposite direction. What is your point?

[myrkul]

Not at all. If you come into my house, and shit on the carpet, is it coercion for me to kick you out? Or even if you simply start swearing worse than a sailor with Tourette's?

What if I don't want to leave and don't like your rules? That's currently your situation right now.

So, are you saying that it is coercion or is not? I'm not clear on that.

I believe left or right remains two separate directions, yes?

We waste so much time with silly statements like the one you just made. So what if you can go left or right? Do you think it's a different road if I go left or if I go right? And last time I checked, left takes me one way and right takes me in the opposite direction. What is your point?

Even now, there's more than one way to get from point A to point B.

[FirstAscent]

Not at all. If you come into my house, and shit on the carpet, is it coercion for me to kick you out? Or even if you simply start swearing worse than a sailor with Tourette's?

What if I don't want to leave and don't like your rules? That's currently your situation right now.

So, are you saying that it is coercion or is not? I'm not clear on that.

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.

[myrkul]

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?

[FirstAscent]

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?

Not worth replying to. Try again.

[myrkul]

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?

Not worth replying to. Try again.

OK, back to ignoring you then. Bye now!

[Hawker]

If you are against NAP you are basically saying: there is a social problem, it must be solved by threatening people with violence. The point is that solving problems with violence is the worst way to do it.

Some people might not put seatbelts on for their kids. Do you:
A. kill them for not doing it. (this is ultimately the threat being made).
B. Solve the problem without using violence.

In a free market, social values are reflected in prices. Resources are allocated according to peoples preferences. If lots of people want kids to wear seatbelts and they think that it's worth the cost to achieve this, then it will happen through economic incentive. If they don't or if it's too expensive, then they don't value it enough to justify any action. Violence is for the intellectually lazy and the bullies.

As soon as you introduce force into the equation, values are no longer reflected in prices. No accurately, anyway; there is the bias of force influencing behavior toward a sub-optimal resource allocation. Instead of the market meeting the values of society, it is now forced to abide by the decree of some arbitrary opinion sanctioned by some politicians. Hence the phrase "an opinion with a gun".

If you see a kid without a seatbelt are you personally willing to point a gun in the fathers face and say "put seatbelts on your children or else I will kill you"? Do you think this solves the problem? This is the NAP-violating, state solution. The only difference is you have some institution doing this on your behalf.

Wrong in theory and in fact.  You are assuming people act rationally in their best interest if there is no law.  Facts tell us otherwise.

Look at the stats: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8243841.stm

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.  

Also, law is not about coercion only.  It sets a standard that people live up to.  That's why people vote for lawmakers who provide seat belt laws, social security and the like.  It allows people to "outsource" the act of willpower needed to live a better life.  

[myrkul]

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

Ever think that might be part of the problem?

[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.

[myrkul]

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...

[JoelKatz]

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.