What's so special about the NAP?

[myrkul]

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

I am not religious, and I have already explained how I derive my rights. Voting rights come well down on that tree, and higher up rights trump lower ones. It's not arbitrary. In order to have a right to vote, you have to have an opinion. In order to have an opinion, you have to own your thoughts. In order to own your thoughts, you must own the meat that has those thoughts. You must own your body. If one right conflicts with another, the one further up the dependency chain "wins". Property rights trumps voting rights.

[1714139537]

1714139537

[1714139537]

1714139537

[1714139537]

1714139537

[1714139537]

1714139537

[1714139537]

1714139537

[1714139537]

1714139537

[Hawker]

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

I am not religious, and I have already explained how I derive my rights. Voting rights come well down on that tree, and higher up rights trump lower ones. It's not arbitrary. In order to have a right to vote, you have to have an opinion. In order to have an opinion, you have to own your thoughts. In order to own your thoughts, you must own the meat that has those thoughts. You must own your body. If one right conflicts with another, the one further up the dependency chain "wins". Property rights trumps voting rights.

That's a natural law type argument.  I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions.  So what you have is an opinion.  Everyone has opinions.  Voting is just a way as any of resolving situations where opinions are different.

[myrkul]

That's a natural law type argument.  I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions. 

Give me at least one.

[Hawker]

That's a natural law type argument.  I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions. 

Give me at least one.

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

[myrkul]

That's a natural law type argument.  I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions. 

Give me at least one.

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

Cute. How about one with a more coherent platform than this?

Establish a team of 1,000 yogic flyers. According to the party, such a group "dissolves collective stress, as indicated by significant reductions in crime, unemployment, sickness, and accidents, and improved economic indicators and quality of life". They would also provide an "invincible defence".

[Hawker]

That's a natural law type argument.  I can't disagree with it but there are other equally sincere natural law type arguments that reach different conclusions. 

Give me at least one.

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

Cute. How about one with a more coherent platform than this?

Establish a team of 1,000 yogic flyers. According to the party, such a group "dissolves collective stress, as indicated by significant reductions in crime, unemployment, sickness, and accidents, and improved economic indicators and quality of life". They would also provide an "invincible defence".

I don't believe in natural law.  How can I be expected to rank various versions of nonsense?

Where are you going here?  In "The Machinery of Freedom" Friedman sets out the exact same position on natural law based property rights arguments that I have.  Its in the "Problems" chapter. 

That logic has not been refuted or Friedman would have recanted.  If he has recanted, link to it and I'll see what changed his mind.  Otherwise you are only repeating the arguments he refuted.

[myrkul]

That logic has not been refuted or Friedman would have recanted.  If he has recanted, link to it and I'll see what changed his mind.  Otherwise you are only repeating the arguments he refuted.

1) Friedman is not the be all and end-all of Libertarian thought. I felt he had a particularly cogent description of market law, and since that is what we were discussing at the time, That book came first. Perhaps I should have specified which chapters to read.

2) if you would like a completely rational, secular explanation of my arguments, I refer you to Universally Preferable Behaviour, by Stephan Molyneux (whole book, right there on the webpage. Enjoy!)

[Hawker]

That logic has not been refuted or Friedman would have recanted.  If he has recanted, link to it and I'll see what changed his mind.  Otherwise you are only repeating the arguments he refuted.

1) Friedman is not the be all and end-all of Libertarian thought. I felt he had a particularly cogent description of market law, and since that is what we were discussing at the time, That book came first. Perhaps I should have specified which chapters to read.

2) if you would like a completely rational, secular explanation of my arguments, I refer you to Universally Preferable Behaviour, by Stephan Molyneux (whole book, right there on the webpage. Enjoy!)

No thanks.  I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites.  A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you.  I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

[myrkul]

No thanks.  I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites.  A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you.  I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

Afraid it'll knock you off that high horse of yours?

[Hawker]

No thanks.  I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites.  A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you.  I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

Afraid it'll knock you off that high horse of yours?

Afraid its like being asked to go to church and to let Jesus into my life.  

BTW, I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern.  That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

[myrkul]

No thanks.  I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites.  A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you.  I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

Afraid it'll knock you off that high horse of yours?

Afraid its like being asked to go to church and to let Jesus into my life. 

Oohhh... you fear conversion. If you fear you might find out you are wrong, you know already.

[Hawker]

No thanks.  I'll skip both that and the Natural Law Party sites.  A detailed examination of why you prefer one thing to another may be of interest to you.  I don't share your preference so why would I waste my time?

Afraid it'll knock you off that high horse of yours?

Afraid its like being asked to go to church and to let Jesus into my life. 

Oohhh... you fear conversion. If you fear you might find out you are wrong, you know already.

I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern.  That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

[myrkul]

I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern.  That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

Or....

Your contention that they did is.

He goes down to first principles, and assumes he is wrong. Can you say the same?

[Hawker]

I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern.  That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

Or....

Your contention that they did is.

He goes down to first principles, and assumes he is wrong. Can you say the same?

Of course not. Its a matter of historical record that states greedily compete for the right to govern.  Free areas get occupied.  Weak states get conquered.  Its a Darwinian struggle and the states we have today are ones that have proved very competitive.  The older a state, the more likely it is that they have found a reliable system of government.

We don't need to theorise this.

[myrkul]

I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern.  That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

Or....

Your contention that they did is.

He goes down to first principles, and assumes he is wrong. Can you say the same?

Of course not. Its a matter of historical record that states greedily compete for the right to govern.  Free areas get occupied.  Weak states get conquered.  Its a Darwinian struggle and the states we have today are ones that have proved very competitive.  The older a state, the more likely it is that they have found a reliable system of government.

We don't need to theorise this.

But that doesn't specify where states come from, only how they got better over time. The nicest mafia is still a mafia.

You'll also notice that they ALL seem to be kinda... I donno... falling apart right at the moment?

[Hawker]

I have read his conclusions and have to say he doesn't' seem to see that states have evolved in the free market of global competition for the right to govern.  That makes pretty well everything he says bogus doesn't it?

Or....

Your contention that they did is.

He goes down to first principles, and assumes he is wrong. Can you say the same?

Of course not. Its a matter of historical record that states greedily compete for the right to govern.  Free areas get occupied.  Weak states get conquered.  Its a Darwinian struggle and the states we have today are ones that have proved very competitive.  The older a state, the more likely it is that they have found a reliable system of government.

We don't need to theorise this.

But that doesn't specify where states come from, only how they got better over time. The nicest mafia is still a mafia.

You'll also notice that they ALL seem to be kinda... I donno... falling apart right at the moment?

  Its like you keep forgetting "The Machinery of Freedom."

I would still regard the government as a criminal organization, but one which was, by a freak of fate, temporarily useful. It would be like a gang of bandits who, while
occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs.

None of the major states is showing signs of falling apart. 

[myrkul]

  Its like you keep forgetting "The Machinery of Freedom."

I would still regard the government as a criminal organization, but one which was, by a freak of fate, temporarily useful. It would be like a gang of bandits who, while
occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs.

None of the major states is showing signs of falling apart. 

So you do agree that the state is a gang of thugs who set up a protection racket, and kept of worse thugs, then?

And if you don't see the cracks forming, you may need to see an optometrist.

[Hawker]

  Its like you keep forgetting "The Machinery of Freedom."

I would still regard the government as a criminal organization, but one which was, by a freak of fate, temporarily useful. It would be like a gang of bandits who, while
occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs.

None of the major states is showing signs of falling apart. 

So you do agree that the state is a gang of thugs who set up a protection racket, and kept of worse thugs, then?

And if you don't see the cracks forming, you may need to see an optometrist.

I agree that is their origin.  Your found fathers were terrorists right up until they won.  Then they were freedom fighters.  If they had lost, Washington and his gang would have been hanged and forgotten.

Name one major state that is having stability issues.  Please don't waste time talking about places like Mali or South Sudan.

[myrkul]

I agree that is their origin.  Your found fathers were terrorists right up until they won.  Then they were freedom fighters.  If they had lost, Washington and his gang would have been hanged and forgotten.

Name one major state that is having stability issues.  Please don't waste time talking about places like Mali or South Sudan.

Then what I propose should not seem too bizarre: Throw off the thugs.

Greece. For that matter, the entire fucking euro zone.

[Hawker]

I agree that is their origin.  Your found fathers were terrorists right up until they won.  Then they were freedom fighters.  If they had lost, Washington and his gang would have been hanged and forgotten.

Name one major state that is having stability issues.  Please don't waste time talking about places like Mali or South Sudan.

Then what I propose should not seem too bizarre: Throw off the thugs.

Greece. For that matter, the entire fucking euro zone.

The Greek people have economic problems.  The state itself is rock solid.  No border disputes and no prospect of being invaded.  The Greek people have to make political decisions but no matter what they decide, the Greek state is not going away.