Criticisms?

[FirstAscent]

Explodicle,

If you're going to quote me, then quote what I said, or say it yourself.

Regarding your statement, clearly if any and every ugly and despicable act under the sun is not illegal in NAP-Land, then obviously other stuff is as well. Number 9 on your list is very interesting. The World analogizes to NAP-Land in some ways - nations are privately owned properties where residents pay monthly fees, but must abide by the security forces employed by the land owners, and the relations between these property owners are negotiated on a per situation basis.

Note that within that world (our world), there are feuds, atomic bomb explosions, mass murder, genocide, etc. Welcome to NAP-Land!

[myrkul]

In NAP-Land, nothing is illegal. For example, none of these are illegal:

1. Breaking DRM on your own phone
2. Possessing cannabis
3. Transferring wealth anonymously
4. Public nudity
5. Not buying health insurance
6. Sodomy, gay marriage
7. Fireworks
8. Refusing to pay for atom bombs
9. Moving across the world without anyone's permission

The following are common (very very common, based entirely on my own imagination)

1. Doing whatever the hell I want so long as it doesn't harm you.

FTFY

Exactly. It's amazing, how he can call it "NAP land", and ignore the fact that NAP means Non-Aggression Principle.

[Explodicle]

Explodicle,

If you're going to quote me, then quote what I said, or say it yourself.

Regarding your statement, clearly if any and every ugly and despicable act under the sun is not illegal in NAP-Land, then obviously other stuff is as well. Number 9 on your list is very interesting. The World analogizes to NAP-Land in some ways - nations are privately owned properties where residents pay monthly fees, but must abide by the security forces employed by the land owners, and the relations between these property owners are negotiated on a per situation basis.

Note that within that world (our world), there are feuds, atomic bomb explosions, mass murder, genocide, etc. Welcome to NAP-Land!

I've edited the orginal post to avoid any further confusion.

I wouldn't consider the existing world to be NAP-land because most of those states don't follow the NAP or even try. Yes, this is because some things are broken that we need to fix - for example, by promoting an independent monetary system, or convincing people to stop supporting wars. Given that myrkul's stated plan is agorism, I thought it was clear to everyone that he isn't going to just buy an island and hope that everything works out. If you think force is a natural monopoly, then let's work together to fix that. We can accomplish anything!

But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth (sorry!) this is just my effort to understand myrkul's Ancap position.

[myrkul]

I wouldn't consider the existing world to be NAP-land because most of those states don't follow the NAP or even try. Yes, this is because some things are broken that we need to fix - for example, by promoting an independent monetary system, or convincing people to stop supporting wars. Given that myrkul's stated plan is agorism, I thought it was clear to everyone that he isn't going to just buy an island and hope that everything works out. If you think force is a natural monopoly, then let's work together to fix that. We can accomplish anything!

But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth (sorry!) this is just my effort to understand myrkul's Ancap position.

You've done a good job of understanding my position. Don't get me wrong, if I could get an island (or asteroid) to start from scratch, with a group of fellow AnCaps, I would, in a heartbeat. Since I can't, however, I recognize the need for an alternate path. That path, in my opinion, is Agorism, which, in a nutshell is telling the government to go pound sand, and building our system here and now. That's a gross oversimplification, and doesn't even touch on the strategies to make it work, but those things have been discussed elsewhere, and I can provide links to detailed explanations, if desired.

[niemivh]

In NAP-Land, nothing is illegal. For example, none of these are illegal:

1. Murder, mass murder
2. Stealing, theft, trespass, B & E
3. Blackmail, extortion
4. Slander, bullying, threatening
5. Environmental destruction, toxic waste dumping, poaching
6. Polluting, noise
7. Spying
8. Kidnapping
9. Child abuse

The following are common (very very common)

1. Lawsuits, counter-suits, and more
2. Revenge, feuds, escalation of feuds
3. Weapons, and more weapons, and bigger weapons
4. Looking over your shoulder wherever you go
5. Tolls, fees, penalties
6. Inconsistency with regard to, well, everything

LOL, love it.  But you forgot:

*  Counterfeiting
*  Every type of financial fraud imaginable

In addition to the fact that if you follow the strict law of NAP, then murder cannot be a crime.  Thought Experiment: if I murder someone, who can retaliate against me without breaking the NAP?  The only person that has the moral high ground by which to kill me back, or put me in jail, or otherwise instigate 'force' against me would be the recently deceased person, no?  How would anyone else have claim on my personal liberty?

[myrkul]

In addition to the fact that if you follow the strict law of NAP, then murder cannot be a crime.  Thought Experiment: if I murder someone, who can retaliate against me without breaking the NAP?  The only person that has the moral high ground by which to kill me back, or put me in jail, or otherwise instigate 'force' against me would be the recently deceased person, no?  How would anyone else have claim on my personal liberty?

When you kill someone, you don't just hurt them. You hurt their family, their friends, their coworkers, practically everyone they know will be affected by your actions.

[FirstAscent]

In addition to the fact that if you follow the strict law of NAP, then murder cannot be a crime.  Thought Experiment: if I murder someone, who can retaliate against me without breaking the NAP?  The only person that has the moral high ground by which to kill me back, or put me in jail, or otherwise instigate 'force' against me would be the recently deceased person, no?  How would anyone else have claim on my personal liberty?

When you kill someone, you don't just hurt them. You hurt their family, their friends, their coworkers, practically everyone they know will be affected by your actions.

Awesome! A lynch mob in the making. Let the family feuds begin (and escalate (and escalate (and escalate))).

[Explodicle]

LOL, love it.  But you forgot:

*  Counterfeiting
*  Every type of financial fraud imaginable

No one on the Bitcoin forum is worried about how the free market would eliminate counterfeiting.

[Hawker]

In addition to the fact that if you follow the strict law of NAP, then murder cannot be a crime.  Thought Experiment: if I murder someone, who can retaliate against me without breaking the NAP?  The only person that has the moral high ground by which to kill me back, or put me in jail, or otherwise instigate 'force' against me would be the recently deceased person, no?  How would anyone else have claim on my personal liberty?

When you kill someone, you don't just hurt them. You hurt their family, their friends, their coworkers, practically everyone they know will be affected by your actions.

So all those people are free to attack you if you kill one person?  Please tell me you are mistaken - that makes the NAP meaningless

[myrkul]

In addition to the fact that if you follow the strict law of NAP, then murder cannot be a crime.  Thought Experiment: if I murder someone, who can retaliate against me without breaking the NAP?  The only person that has the moral high ground by which to kill me back, or put me in jail, or otherwise instigate 'force' against me would be the recently deceased person, no?  How would anyone else have claim on my personal liberty?

When you kill someone, you don't just hurt them. You hurt their family, their friends, their coworkers, practically everyone they know will be affected by your actions.

So all those people are free to attack you if you kill one person?  Please tell me you are I am mistaken - that makes the NAP meaningless

I'd like you to explain how that makes NAP meaningless, But I'll address your question first.

I don't endorse or condone retributive violence. Only in very few cases would I even accept it. All of these people, however, would have claim for damages against the killer, in lesser and greater degrees. So the murdered person is not the only victim, just the one that was most harmed, and the one whom you are least able to make whole.

[Hawker]

In addition to the fact that if you follow the strict law of NAP, then murder cannot be a crime.  Thought Experiment: if I murder someone, who can retaliate against me without breaking the NAP?  The only person that has the moral high ground by which to kill me back, or put me in jail, or otherwise instigate 'force' against me would be the recently deceased person, no?  How would anyone else have claim on my personal liberty?

When you kill someone, you don't just hurt them. You hurt their family, their friends, their coworkers, practically everyone they know will be affected by your actions.

So all those people are free to attack you if you kill one person?  Please tell me you are I am mistaken - that makes the NAP meaningless

I'd like you to explain how that makes NAP meaningless, But I'll address your question first.

I don't endorse or condone retributive violence. Only in very few cases would I even accept it. All of these people, however, would have claim for damages against the killer, in lesser and greater degrees. So the murdered person is not the only victim, just the one that was most harmed, and the one whom you are least able to make whole.

Most people would interpret that to mean that instead of a system where a court checks if a person is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before punishing them, you have lots of people who feel damaged by a suspected killer and who will get together to kill him.

Proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt won't happen with mob law.  You will see innocents killed. 

Of course, that makes all of the mob killers too and they are then targets themselves.  In my background of sectarian violence, this is a very familiar scenario.  Its hard to see the point of the NAP if that is how its intended to work.

[myrkul]

Most people would interpret that to mean that instead of a system where a court checks if a person is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before punishing them, you have lots of people who feel damaged by a suspected killer and who will get together to kill him.

Proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt won't happen with mob law.  You will see innocents killed. 

Of course, that makes all of the mob killers too and they are then targets themselves.  In my background of sectarian violence, this is a very familiar scenario.  Its hard to see the point of the NAP if that is how its intended to work.

Ahh. I see your point, and indeed, if the mob decided to take vengeance, that would tend to break the system. Thus why I disapprove of retributive violence. It's usually counterproductive, and always unproductive. In other words, it never fixes anything, and usually makes things worse. The solution here is again, since nobody is in immediate danger, to use arbitration. Each of those people have a grievance against the killer, which can be brought to arbitration.

He's harmed someone, violently, so in this instance, I would consider forcing him to show up justified.

[Hawker]

Most people would interpret that to mean that instead of a system where a court checks if a person is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before punishing them, you have lots of people who feel damaged by a suspected killer and who will get together to kill him.

Proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt won't happen with mob law.  You will see innocents killed. 

Of course, that makes all of the mob killers too and they are then targets themselves.  In my background of sectarian violence, this is a very familiar scenario.  Its hard to see the point of the NAP if that is how its intended to work.

Ahh. I see your point, and indeed, if the mob decided to take vengeance, that would tend to break the system. Thus why I disapprove of retributive violence. It's usually counterproductive, and always unproductive. In other words, it never fixes anything, and usually makes things worse. The solution here is again, since nobody is in immediate danger, to use arbitration. Each of those people have a grievance against the killer, which can be brought to arbitration.

He's harmed someone, violently, so in this instance, I would consider forcing him to show up justified.

A system where a mob can hang a man without a jury trial is a system where mobs will hang men without jury trials.  If the mobs are of different races or religion, they will argue its self-defence.  The question is whether the NAP forbids it?  If not, its a lot less benign that I thought. 

[myrkul]

A system where a mob can hang a man without a jury trial is a system where mobs will hang men without jury trials.  If the mobs are of different races or religion, they will argue its self-defence.  The question is whether the NAP forbids it?  If not, its a lot less benign that I thought. 

In a case of irrefutable proof (man murders someone in broad daylight, gets 6 or seven holes punched in him by the people in the street) I'd say justice done. But in a case where there is even a shred of doubt, arbitration remains the way to go. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as it were.

[Hawker]

A system where a mob can hang a man without a jury trial is a system where mobs will hang men without jury trials.  If the mobs are of different races or religion, they will argue its self-defence.  The question is whether the NAP forbids it?  If not, its a lot less benign that I thought. 

In a case of irrefutable proof (man murders someone in broad daylight, gets 6 or seven holes punched in him by the people in the street) I'd say justice done. But in a case where there is even a shred of doubt, arbitration remains the way to go. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as it were.

Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves.  If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?

[myrkul]

Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves.  If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?

Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him.

[Explodicle]

If they hang him without proof, then it's not a NAP-based society.
If they give him a fair choice of arbitration then it's a NAP-based society.

There's no sense in arguing pragmatic issues like HOW to bring about such a society until we agree that we SHOULD bring it about.

[Hawker]

Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves.  If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?

Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him.

And if they don't get there in time? Is there a penalty for the mob? 

[myrkul]

Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves.  If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?

Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him.

And if they don't get there in time? Is there a penalty for the mob? 

Yes, especially if the evidence bears out that he was innocent. That's what the (initial) arbitration is for, to determine guilt or innocence.

[myrkul]

If you haven't yet, you must watch :
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#

This is getting cross-posted in the other threads. If you doubt the fairness of NAP and market anarchy, This will be a good use of 23 of your minutes.