What's so special about the NAP?

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers
This is hatred.  And when law and order breaks down, that is your new government.

No, that is a new pile of corpses on my front lawn. No monopoly on violence, remember? That means that peaceful people can defend themselves using whatever means necessary.

They can't.  Really, you can talk all you want but 10 trained military people who are willing to die for their cause can dominate 1000s.  Even in the US, tiny groups like mafia families have great power.  Once you lose the protection of the state, as Irish Catholics did in the 1970s, then you are at the mercy of savages.

You really give the impression you think that people are basically nice and that if the society were set up right, we would all get along.  That is wrong.  Racial and religious violence is real.  Part of the function of government is to prevent such stuff.

[1714066033]

1714066033

[1714066033]

1714066033

[1714066033]

1714066033

[1714066033]

1714066033

[hazek]

So I started a discussion about what I perceive as profiteering in another thread, and realized that there is a comparison with libertarianism and the Non Agression Pact.  I define profiteering as selling at the maximum price you think your customers will pay; as a genuine free market would fully endorse. One forum user, evoorhees, states:

It is natural, moral, legitimate, efficient, and productive to seek the highest profit one can obtain, so long as one doesn't resort to fraud, deception, trickery, or theft in order to obtain it.

So I wondered, why stop at profiteering? Why should fraud, deception or trickery somehow not be permitted?  Please read that thread for more info there.  Here I just want to discuss the analogy with NAP which, hopefully, is fairly obvious as follows.

Libertarians want there to be a minimum of laws, in fact, as I understand, there should be only one: do no violence unto others (where violence is understood to include such things as theft or damage, which implicitly defines such a thing as private property).

Well, why no agression? Life is violent by nature - just ask any lion or gazelle; each and every one of us should be obliged to take adequate steps to defend ourselves and those who do not... well... too bad, they were warned. The thief cannot be blamed if that ferrari happened to be there, with the keys in the ignition; the bandit cannot be blamed if the rich man was travelling dark lonely streets without bodyguards; the large-scale farmer cannot be blamed if his small-scale neighbor left his farm unguarded while he was ill.  And so on.

A society could have lots of laws, or a few laws, or none. What's so special about having just one law, the NAP? Like I say, life is violent, so people should all be prepared for violence. You can't defend the NAP by appealing to civilisation or that mankind has subjugated its violent nature, because then you're implicitly justifying any other laws that civilisation chooses to enact, or any other behaviors that mankind chooses to subjugate.

Indeed, a violent person should be praised for helping the society learn how to defend itself and become even more resilient to external agression.  A bit like hackers getting paid to show banks where their weaknesses are.

If you want people to be as free as possible, then stopping at "no agression" seems a bit arbitrary.  It's certainly not written in the stars or the rocks.  What gives?

Simple, my post on FreeDomainRadio in the thread titled "Why Should I Follow the NAP?":

Morality really boils down to how you can behave towards others while not provoking what you'd consider a negative response such as self defense or ostracization, ect.

When the other person labels something as morally good or right it's really behavior they are ok with, and when they label something as bad or wrong it's really what they aren't ok with and are going to respond negatively towards. It's all highly subjective and without them being there to subjectively experience your behavior there is nothing objective about something being right or wrong.

You don't murder not because it's universally wrong, but because you know the likely response you'll receive for your actions and you want to avoid that response. That's why you should behave morally, to avoid responses from others you don't want to experience.

 

The only question left is how do people figure out what everyone will be ok with and what everyone will have a negative response to and how do they reconcile with everything inbetween including their individual preferences, a very difficult and most likely an impossible question to answer and what UPB attempts to answer, hence why I believe morality is not only counterproductive but also irrelevant(read about it here:  http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35285.aspx)

I maintain that a far better approach is to colaborate only with people pursuing the same objective goal which then has clear objective requirements for reaching it in order to figure out what behavior is ok for everyone and what behavior isn't.

[myrkul]

They can't.  Really, you can talk all you want but 10 trained military people who are willing to die for their cause can dominate 1000s.

Why, when giving them their wish won't even empty one clip? All it takes is one guy who doesn't want to be ruled...

Racial and religious violence is real.  Part of the function of government is to prevent such stuff.

But that function can be provided without the monopoly. You hear anarchy, and you think chaos. That's not it at all, all an anarchist wants is for the government to give up its monopoly on justice and protection. Let other, competing agencies do the same job.

[Equilux]

I couldn't quite put my finger on it earlier but now I think I see at least one of the major flaws in a NAP approach;

What a NAP implicitly asks, or even excpects from everyone involved, is that every single individual dedicates a significant amount of their time and effort in making sure you can defend yourself. Whether that involves selfdefence lessons, learing to proficiantly shoot a gun, reinforcing their house or whatever, all that time could have been spend on something much more worthwhile.

It's such a waste, especially if you think about what actually is important in a human life, to be able to spend your time doing the things you love to do, are good at, and feel passionate about, and in which you experience growth. Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended.

Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.

[hazek]

Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended.

Fallacy.

Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.

What separation of powers? Merely saying it exists doesn't make it so. 

[Equilux]

Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended.

Fallacy.

Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.

What separation of powers? Merely saying it exists doesn't make it so.  

Explain please, merely saying fallacy doesn't make it so.

You seem to think there is a problem with the seperation of powers, how would a NAP improve that? If anything it would only make things worse.

Don't forget the rest of the post btw.

And for someone making a remark about me "just stating things", you seem to be doing exactly that ...

[myrkul]

What a NAP implicitly asks, or even expects from everyone involved, is that every single individual dedicates a significant amount of their time and effort in making sure you can defend yourself. Whether that involves self-defense lessons, learning to proficiently shoot a gun, reinforcing their house or whatever, all that time could have been spend on something much more worthwhile.

Not so. Where there is a demand, a supply will be created. If someone does not wish to defend themselves, then someone will be willing to defend them, for whatever price they are willing or able to pay.

[hazek]

Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended.

Fallacy.

Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.

What separation of powers? Merely saying it exists doesn't make it so.  

Explain please, merely saying fallacy doesn't make it so.

You seem to think there is a problem with the seperation of powers, how would a NAP improve that? If anything it would only make things worse.

Don't forget the rest of the post btw.

And for someone making a remark about me "just stating things", you seem to be doing exactly that ...

Learn free market economics as taught by the Austrian school of economic thought and you'll understand why it's a fallacy. But really quickly, what you said is the same as if I said creating private companies to develop cell phones will massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leave a lot of people who clearly need cell phones without one.


I don't seem think there is a problem with separation of powers, I think there is no such thing as separation of powers just the idea of it, and I think that based on evidence of recent history like unilaterally declared wars and all the other bullshit governments do they according to their PR (constitution) aren't suppose to do.

[Equilux]

What a NAP implicitly asks, or even expects from everyone involved, is that every single individual dedicates a significant amount of their time and effort in making sure you can defend yourself. Whether that involves self-defense lessons, learning to proficiently shoot a gun, reinforcing their house or whatever, all that time could have been spend on something much more worthwhile.

Not so. Where there is a demand, a supply will be created. If someone does not wish to defend themselves, then someone will be willing to defend them, for whatever price they are willing or able to pay.

For whatever price they are willing to pay ... for whatever price they are able to pay ... which in many many case is nothing to very little, or in even more case, simply not enough. Not by a longshot since in a vast majorety of the cases the people most needing protection from that harshest violence have the least to spend on protection. that's why people end of enslaved working for some warlord/gangster/druglord. Hence my earlier remarks about that's whole sceme massively favoring the rich and powerfull

[Equilux]

Which also brings to light that there is a really significant chance you just are terrible at learning to defend yourself, just like many people just are terrible at singing or whatever. And what about people who are just unable to fend for themselves? The sick, handicapped, injured, but also children, especially orphans, or the elderly who don't have children. Creating private policeforces massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leaves a lot of people who clearly need defending undefended.

Fallacy.

Another reason it is an excellent state of affairs that the government has a monopoly of protection is more or less the same reason there is seperation of powers. It insures that there is the least conflict of interest, and that everyone has a right to the same amount of protection, and the right to have a fair trial. As soon a any of those things are for sale, you start to slide towards massive inequality.

What separation of powers? Merely saying it exists doesn't make it so.  

Explain please, merely saying fallacy doesn't make it so.

You seem to think there is a problem with the seperation of powers, how would a NAP improve that? If anything it would only make things worse.

Don't forget the rest of the post btw.

And for someone making a remark about me "just stating things", you seem to be doing exactly that ...

Learn free market economics as taught by the Austrian school of economic thought and you'll understand why it's a fallacy. But really quickly, what you said is the same as if I said creating private companies to develop cell phones will massively favors the already rich and/or powerfull, and leave a lot of people who clearly need cell phones without one.


I don't seem think there is a problem with separation of powers, I think there is no separation of powers, and I think that based on evidence of recent history like unilaterally declared wars and all the other bullshit governments do they according to their PR (constitution) aren't suppose to do.

You really don't see a problem with your cellphone analogy? Really? Come on man. You find it acceptable that an enormous amount of people are unable to simply go about with their day because they are not able to defend themselves (or are uable to pay for it) just like it is acceptable that an enormous amount of people who clearly need a cellphone can't get one.

I think there is a lot more going on with regards to those events in our recent history to single our the lack of seperation of powers as the main problem. an d I can only see a NAP making that much much worse, even more local selfish interst being pusued, and now with even more power being directly for sale, a NAP would definatly not make things better as far as i can see.

[myrkul]

...since in a vast majority of the cases the people most needing protection from that harshest violence have the least to spend on protection. that's why people end of enslaved working for some warlord/gangster/druglord. Hence my earlier remarks about that's whole scheme massively favoring the rich and powerful

You seem to be arguing that the absolutely dirt poor will be by that fact completely defenseless. I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that government services aren't truly free, and taxes hurt the poor far worse than the rich. Remove the tax burden, and suddenly even the poorest people have a good chunk more money to spend.

Also, I'd like to point out that many people who can't afford a landline phone handily afford a cell. A good number of people have dumped the landline in favor of a cellphone, myself included.

[hazek]

You really don't see a problem with your cellphone analogy? Really? Come on man. You find it acceptable that an enormous amount of people are unable to simply go about with their day because they are not able to defend themselves (or are uable to pay for it) just like it is acceptable that an enormous amount of people who clearly need a cellphone can't get one.

No I most certainly don't see a problem with my analogy.

Freedom is not free, those who wont or can't defend it or find others that will defend it for them will unfortunately have to cope without it. That's not ideal but it's the cruel reality we exist in. And don't for a second pretend that government and it's service of protection somehow solves this perfectly, especially for the really poor, because I'm not going to list various crime statistics to prove to you with concrete evidence how deluded you are.


Btw most of your wrong ideas about the world stem from your lack of good understanding of a by strictly market consumers regulated market econimics (i.e. free market economics) and I'm sorry but I can't afford to waste my time replying to you anymore because it's simply no point until you have a grasp on that. If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free).

[Equilux]

...since in a vast majority of the cases the people most needing protection from that harshest violence have the least to spend on protection. that's why people end of enslaved working for some warlord/gangster/druglord. Hence my earlier remarks about that's whole scheme massively favoring the rich and powerful

You seem to be arguing that the absolutely dirt poor will be by that fact completely defenseless. I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that government services aren't truly free, and taxes hurt the poor far worse than the rich. Remove the tax burden, and suddenly even the poorest people have a good chunk more money to spend.

Also, I'd like to point out that many people who can't afford a landline phone handily afford a cell. A good number of people have dumped the landline in favor of a cellphone, myself included.

I understand that these services are not free and are paid for by taxes, which are indeed a burden on the poor. But I would argue that even the not really well to do (and naturally the poor all the way down to the dirt poor) will be much worse off. there is very little to be profited from these people, and with private policeforce they will receive matching protection ... very little. So again the people who generaly have the most to fear from violence and crime will get a worse protection.

And perhaps even more disgusting is that fact that this now has nothing to do with justice anymore. If you can't show the cash you are basically on your own, and the hired goons will see to it that it stays like that. like I said before a giant slope leaning more and more towards inequality

[hazek]

like I said before a giant slope leaning more and more towards inequality

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but we are not and can never be equal.

[myrkul]

If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free).

This. So this. Read even some of the blog posts, and you'll get a better idea of what we're talking about.

I understand that these services are not free and are paid for by taxes, which are indeed a burden on the poor. But I would argue that even the not really well to do (and naturally the poor all the way down to the dirt poor) will be much worse off. there is very little to be profited from these people, and with private policeforce they will receive matching protection ... very little. So again the people who generaly have the most to fear from violence and crime will get a worse protection.

I see you mean well, but you forget that those with little to pay also have little to steal, thus little incentive to steal from them. The free market, as illustrated by the cell phone analogy, will bring better service, for lower prices, than a monopoly ever could.

[Equilux]

You really don't see a problem with your cellphone analogy? Really? Come on man. You find it acceptable that an enormous amount of people are unable to simply go about with their day because they are not able to defend themselves (or are uable to pay for it) just like it is acceptable that an enormous amount of people who clearly need a cellphone can't get one.

No I most certainly don't see a problem with my analogy.

Freedom is not free, those who wont or can't defend it or find others that will defend it for them will unfortunately have to cope without it. That's not ideal but it's the cruel reality we exist in. And don't for a second pretend that government and it's service of protection somehow solves this perfectly, especially for the really poor, because I'm not going to list various crime statistics to prove to you with concrete evidence how deluded you are.


Btw most of your wrong ideas about the world stem from your lack of good understanding of a by strictly market consumers regulated market econimics (i.e. free market economics) and I'm sorry but I can't afford to waste my time replying to you anymore because it's simply no point until you have a grasp on that. If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free).

Is that the cruel reality we live in? Really? Freedom is not free indeed, but from which dark hole did you pull this "rule" that if you are unable to defend it yourself you'll have to do without? That is, to be quite honest, a bullshit rule which you and unfortunately a few others (particularly americans) made up, and pretend that it really exists in the outside world.

And your distorted view of free market economics is also not universal, and it's rather childish to blame your blindsness for the downsides of and economic theory on my supposed lack of understanding.

And finally I'm quite aware that the govenment does not solve the issue of protection pefectly, we would not be having this conversation if it did. (did I say there was suffient protection for the poor under the current system? Talk about deluded ...) But What I am saying is that private policeforces would make things much much worse for a majorety of the people, while throwing what remains of justice decidedly out of the window.

[Equilux]

like I said before a giant slope leaning more and more towards inequality

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but we are not and can never be equal.

Never said we were, but should we make it worse? Should we make it worse for people who have no opportunity to make it better for themselves?

[Equilux]

If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free).

This. So this. Read even some of the blog posts, and you'll get a better idea of what we're talking about.

I understand that these services are not free and are paid for by taxes, which are indeed a burden on the poor. But I would argue that even the not really well to do (and naturally the poor all the way down to the dirt poor) will be much worse off. there is very little to be profited from these people, and with private policeforce they will receive matching protection ... very little. So again the people who generaly have the most to fear from violence and crime will get a worse protection.

I see you mean well, but you forget that those with little to pay also have little to steal, thus little incentive to steal from them. The free market, as illustrated by the cell phone analogy, will bring better service, for lower prices, than a monopoly ever could.

That is simply not thue, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighbehood they know and usually inhabit.

[hazek]

How do you know it would be worse? Does human history have any precedent of a sophisticated, highly developed and educated society that attempted a by strictly market consumers regulated market approach to law and security?


You know how you sound? You sound like those who defended slavery saying the world was going to end without slaves since there wont be enough food produced without masters having the slaves to work the fields.

[Equilux]

How do you know it would be worse?

By consistently reasoning with the ideas presented, and seeing which consequences that would have.


How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.