What's so special about the NAP?

[myrkul]

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.

With what will they pay their government workers?

Will they work for free?

And what say you to throwing off the thugs?

[1714106219]

1714106219

[Hawker]

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.

With what will they pay their government workers?

Will they work for free?

And what say you to throwing off the thugs?

You mean a revolution and abolish the state?  Please, why do you keep coming back to ideas that "The Machinery of Freedom" thoroughly debunked.

[myrkul]

You mean a revolution and abolish the state?  Please, why do you keep coming back to ideas that "The Machinery of Freedom" thoroughly debunked.

Perhaps because he is not the only libertarian thinker I respect, and I believe he might be wrong about a few things? Why do you keep coming back to him as defense?

[Hawker]

You mean a revolution and abolish the state?  Please, why do you keep coming back to ideas that "The Machinery of Freedom" thoroughly debunked.

Perhaps because he is not the only libertarian thinker I respect, and I believe he might be wrong about a few things? Why do you keep coming back to him as defense?

Because he got that right.  Re-read the chapter on revolutions.  Then you won't want one

[myrkul]

Because he got that right.  Re-read the chapter on revolutions.  Then you won't want one

Never said I did. Hasn't been a violent revolution that resulted lasting freedom... ever.

[Hawker]

Because he got that right.  Re-read the chapter on revolutions.  Then you won't want one

Never said I did. Hasn't been a violent revolution that resulted lasting freedom... ever.

Then we are left with the state as a rock solid entity.  Fine. 

[myrkul]

Because he got that right.  Re-read the chapter on revolutions.  Then you won't want one

Never said I did. Hasn't been a violent revolution that resulted lasting freedom... ever.

Then we are left with the state as a rock solid entity.  Fine. 

How, exactly did we get from "Violent revolutions don't work" to "The state is a rock-solid entity"?

agorism.info

[Hawker]

Because he got that right.  Re-read the chapter on revolutions.  Then you won't want one

Never said I did. Hasn't been a violent revolution that resulted lasting freedom... ever.

Then we are left with the state as a rock solid entity.  Fine. 

How, exactly did we get from "Violent revolutions don't work" to "The state is a rock-solid entity"?

agorism.info

Been there - its very nice.  People pay their taxes and at their own expense replicate the stuff they are supposed to get for their taxes.  Very nice.

[myrkul]

Because he got that right.  Re-read the chapter on revolutions.  Then you won't want one

Never said I did. Hasn't been a violent revolution that resulted lasting freedom... ever.

Then we are left with the state as a rock solid entity.  Fine. 

How, exactly did we get from "Violent revolutions don't work" to "The state is a rock-solid entity"?

agorism.info

Been there - its very nice.  People pay their taxes and at their own expense replicate the stuff they are supposed to get for their taxes.  Very nice.

Yeah... that? No.

[fergalish]

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.

Ahhhhhhhhh I get it. I think you are suggesting that, in order to eliminate racism, all racist people must suddenly stop acting racist. Now I understand why I never got it until now.

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.

So any random person can engage in violence against the pimp?  I understood that violence was only justified as self-defense under the NAP. But please answer clearly - you already stated there is no economic argument for eliminating slavery in NAP land. Does the elimination of slavery then rely on the kindness of strangers?  See how you answered; you seem to be contradicting yourself:

• fergalish: "until some kind stranger decides to eliminate slavery, a NAP society will tolerate it insofar as it will not be actively eliminated, true or false?"
• myrkul: "false. Any person can take it upon themselves to eliminate any instance of slavery at any time."

But now, are you suggesting that any person can take violent action to eliminate (or perhaps even prevent?) any perceived violation of NAP, even if they themselves are not the victim?

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.

I must indeed be underestimating shady repair man's risks. What are they? He is merely fixing someone's car. Is he obliged to carry out checks before doing so or is he free to conduct his business as he wishes? Are the victims of hit-n-runs entitled to engage in violence against him on the possibility that one of his clients is a hit-n-runner?
On average, the sum of the premiums is at least equal to the sum of the damages and compensations.  Therefore it would be cheaper for all drivers to collectively not pay insurance and fund all damages and compensation claims from their own pockets, simply because then they're not paying the insurance company's internal costs and profits.  In case the driver has no insurance, which insurance company pays?

Even if it was this random stranger?
How do you imagine the average Iraqi feels about that guy?

Are you suggesting that people will need to travel armed like that under NAP?  I hope not.  But in any case, I might have a very good aim with poisoned darts and a blowgun.  You're not answering the question:  If I perceive a threat, am I justified in responding with violence EVEN IF (unknown to me) no threat was intended?
To answer your question, I'm sure the average Iraqi doesn't like him.  But then, he doesn't intend any harm against pro-NAP Iraqis.  By your argument, they have no cause to dislike him. Indeed those who were persecuted under Hussein's rule might even have cause to welcome him.

[fergalish]

Is that your opinion?  Or is that somehow, like Moonshadow thought, a non-arbitrary definition?  Just to be clear: I disagree, <snip>

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.

Please CLEARLY define "reasonable" in this context, in such a way as it is clear to EVERYONE when there is, or is not, a threat - let's be honest, we're talking about mortal threats here, it would be a terrible thing if someone got it wrong and two NAPsters ended up, you know, killing each other over a misunderstanding.

When you have done that, please explain how that is not like a "law", and why what *you* think should trump what *I* think (I happen to think my perception is perfectly reasonable).

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.

Ok.  Here is an argument.  Natural law would suggest there is no such thing as private property, save what you can actually carry on your back and actively defend.  Think about it - humans are the only species with such extensive property rights. All other animals must individually defend their property, be that a fresh kill, or a nest.  Therefore, I reject private property.  If I find your Ferrari undefended, I may claim it.  Your opinion is different, but that is of no consequence.

[fergalish]

I'm talking about "true libertarianism" in which even the NAP is rescinded. You are truly free to do whatever you want. Rescinding laws until you're left with only the NAP is arbitrary. Give me a good logical argument why libertarians insist on maintaining a NAP, and yet insist on rescinding lots of other laws.  Or, alternatively, why libertarians insist on creating the NAP, yet refuse to create other laws.

You seem to be confusing laws with a principle

Sorry, I've been offline for a while. This is a good post, different from the pro- and anti-NAP flame war currently going on.  Yes, cryptoanarcist, perhaps I did.  But then, if NAP is merely a principle, what is its basis?  Is it a principle of morality?  Of utility? Or maybe religious? An economic principle perhaps?  But if it's any of these, then it is necessarily subjective, and hence it is not universal (in the sense not all humans will consider it obviously useful/good/ideal). As such, it cannot possibly form the basis of a society composed of members with different or competing goals, morals, religions, racial features,..... and so on.

I give up. I too am guilty of off-topic posting. I would point out just that there has been no clear reason given, for what is so special about the NAP.  It seems to be based on vague feelings, beliefs, and opinions on "Natural Law" and what constitutes "right" and "wrong" behavior.

[myrkul]

(trimmed for brevity's sake)

Ahhhhhhhhh I get it. I think you are suggesting that, in order to eliminate racism, all racist people must suddenly stop acting racist. Now I understand why I never got it until now.

But now, are you suggesting that any person can take violent action to eliminate (or perhaps even prevent?) any perceived violation of NAP, even if they themselves are not the victim?

In case the driver has no insurance, which insurance company pays?

Are you suggesting that people will need to travel armed like that under NAP? 

Well, they can act racist all they want, so long as those acts are limited to non-aggressive ones.

Yes, But be careful with "prevention"... It's easy to get carried away, as your "OMG he has a AR, Keeeel heeeem!" response shows....

The victim's, who has a vested interest in discovering who harmed their client.

Need to? No. But there's nothing stopping them. As long as they don't point the gun at you, they're not a threat. If you perceive one anyway, you can act on it... be be aware that might end up making you the aggressor...

As to the rest of your points, Might I suggest UPB as a valid secular, rational, damn near mathematical, proof of the NAP. I'm working on getting it into epub format, and at that point, it will show up in the "book club" thread. In the meantime, the full text is at that link.

[niemivh]

If you are proposing Democracy, as such, count me out.  Democracy is like I said before and like Hamilton warned us: it is the masses being made to slit their own throats by use of ideology and the molding of the public mind by those in power establishment (the Oligarchy).  I'd like to try and dampen that process, it is already rapidly destroying our society, evidenced by the various ideological lemmings that I'm surrounded by (Marxists, Communists, Leftists, Libertarians, Anarchists, etc).

Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

The general answer is: The American System of Political Economy.

The more specific answer is a bunch of policies and possible Constitutional amendments.  I'm ready to answer either one based on how much you'd like to have this conversation orbit around policy or theory.

[myrkul]

Which brings us to an interesting point. Which system do you propose as better than both the current mess and market anarchy?

The general answer is: The American System of Political Economy.

Can you briefly summarize its tenets? for example, Market anarchy holds that there is no need for a regional monopoly on any service, and the market can provide them all, better and cheaper than forcing people to pay a single organization.

[niemivh]

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

Are you aware that what the rich do with their money affects what you can do with yours?  Also are you aware that once a group of people start unduly gaining money in the system they typically turn that undue money into undue power by buying political influence?  And if you are aware of that, how does the solution become "ok, we due away with government" rather than "ok, we due something to curb the appetites and corrupting potential influence of our elites"?

[niemivh]

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.

Why is this dichotomy between pure Tyrannical-Democracy and Libertarian-Anarchist-Utopia?

What is wrong with Majority Rule with Rights of Individuals Constitutionally Protected?  This is the system of the American Revolution and it's the better system than the options between the above two that you seem to pretend are the only options.

[niemivh]

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.

It's surprising easy that they won't take out those taxes because you won't be hired and won't be employed working there if trying to avoid paying taxes.

[niemivh]

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...

How could a system which permits all manner, type and variety of financial fraud possibly provide the underpinning support for an insurance company to exist?  Who, in this system, protects against insurance fraud?  Setting up a fake bank or insurance company would surely be (and is) one of the most profitable frauds that exists.

[myrkul]

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

Are you aware that what the rich do with their money affects what you can do with yours?  Also are you aware that once a group of people start unduly gaining money in the system they typically turn that undue money into undue power by buying political influence?  And if you are aware of that, how does the solution become "ok, we due away with government" rather than "ok, we due something to curb the appetites and corrupting potential influence of our elites"?

No political system, no way for anyone to get undue political influence.