What provisions does NAP have to stay NAP?

[FirstAscent]

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

[benjamindees]

Self-defense, defense of others.

But I'll point out that we already have a NAP thread...

[FirstAscent]

Self-defense, defense of others.

But I'll point out that we already have a NAP thread...

We have many NAP threads. Specifically, the question is how NAP can ensure that it stays NAP. I've never (nor will I ever) see an answer to that question, because NAP, in all its simplicity, does not provide for it.

[benjamindees]

I've never (nor will I ever) see an answer

So I guess that's the reason you glossed over the answer?

[asdf]

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

It seems meaningless, but the truth is that you actually don't get it...

It's not a law to be enforced. Yes, I know "if no one will force people to abide by the NAP then no one will abide. If people do use force then it's not NAP. therefore it's meaningless.". This is correct in itself, but shows that you don't understand that NAP is a PRINCIPAL not a LAW.

A principal doesn't need "a means of remaining a principal", like a law needs a means of being enforced. It's just a principal.

The important question is, should we base social organization on the principal of non-aggression? Currently, we base social organisation on the principal that a monopoly on force should be used to organize society and we decide what force gets used on who through voting.

Now, most people believe that the latter is preferable. That is why the state exists; it is has the moral sanction of the people. In a free society most people believe that the former is preferable. The state cannot exists in this society because it is entirely based on aggression.

So if we're going to have a real discussion we should be talking about which principal of social organisation is preferable. Libertarians are just saying "let's go with the NAP". To them it's just a matter of an ideological shift; a battle of ideas. NAP doesn't need a means of remaining NAP, it just needs the moral sanction of the population, just like the state needs the moral sanction to remain in power.

That is why we are here debating with you, trying to get you to accept the NAP as the moral choice. The only barrier to a free society is the majority of people who believe that violence is a moral and effective principal on which to base social organisation.

[ineededausername]

asdf: I think the debate here is not whether the NAP is morally acceptable, but whether it's practical to implement.  FirstAscent is arguing that any system adhering strictly to the NAP will eventually evolve into a system violating the NAP due to human nature.

[asdf]

asdf: I think the debate here is not whether the NAP is morally acceptable, but whether it's practical to implement.  FirstAscent is arguing that any system adhering strictly to the NAP will eventually evolve into a system violating the NAP due to human nature.

Sure. That's what I meant when I said "should we base social organization on the principal of non-aggression?". Should we from a moral basis. Should we from a pragmatic basis.

On a micro level, transactions can be voluntary or involuntary (involving violent coercion). Which is more practical? It's hard to make a pragmatic case for coercion here. In a voluntary transaction, both parties win, there is an overall net gain. In a forceful transaction, one party wins and there is typically a net loss.

On a macro level, I've found that all social problems have at their root cause a violation of the non-aggression principal and a disrespect for property. Which makes sense when you understand that coercive transactions pervert the incentive structures. When non-voluntary transactions are acceptable you create an environment where socially destructive behavior is incentivised; the function of the market is corrupted.

NAP is not a policy to "implement". It's a principal that people can either abide by or not. Advocates of NAP are not saying that NAP should be some sort of law or decree imposed upon society, that would be contradictory. We are just saying that it's a good principal for people to live by. We are trying to convince others of this, because everyone benefits. Some can't accept it because of their desire to use the force of the state to impose their personal vision of society on others.

So, do you think that people should live by this principal? Should people live by the principal that it is wrong to use violence in human interaction, except in self defense? Or is this an impractical principal for people to have? Does it lead to social disorder?

There is no such thing as human nature. Humans adapt to their environment. A person growing up in a violent, abusive environment will become a violent, abusive adult. Latest science backs this up.

[FirstAscent]

asdf: I think the debate here is not whether the NAP is morally acceptable, but whether it's practical to implement.  FirstAscent is arguing that any system adhering strictly to the NAP will eventually evolve into a system violating the NAP due to human nature.

Sure. That's what I meant when I said "should we base social organization on the principal of non-aggression?". Should we from a moral basis. Should we from a pragmatic basis.

On a micro level, transactions can be voluntary or involuntary (involving violent coercion). Which is more practical? It's hard to make a pragmatic case for coercion here. In a voluntary transaction, both parties win, there is an overall net gain. In a forceful transaction, one party wins and there is typically a net loss.

On a macro level, I've found that all social problems have at their root cause a violation of the non-aggression principal and a disrespect for property. Which makes sense when you understand that coercive transactions pervert the incentive structures. When non-voluntary transactions are acceptable you create an environment where socially destructive behavior is incentivised; the function of the market is corrupted.

NAP is not a policy to "implement". It's a principal that people can either abide by or not. Advocates of NAP are not saying that NAP should be some sort of law or decree imposed upon society, that would be contradictory. We are just saying that it's a good principal for people to live by. We are trying to convince others of this, because everyone benefits. Some can't accept it because of their desire to use the force of the state to impose their personal vision of society on others.

So, do you think that people should live by this principal? Should people live by the principal that it is wrong to use violence in human interaction, except in self defense? Or is this an impractical principal for people to have? Does it lead to social disorder?

There is no such thing as human nature. Humans adapt to their environment. A person growing up in a violent, abusive environment will become a violent, abusive adult. Latest science backs this up.

These self referential assertions about something called NAP do not address the question posed within the title of this thread.

Practically define the means by which NAP enforces itself from not evolving into a state. Let me give you an example for simplicity: Joe and a 1,000 others live in NAP-land. Substitute whatever number you want for the population. Now let's say Joe and his friends have a fancy for ruling, rather than adhering to the NAP. Assume it. Better yet, anticipate it. How does NAP stop Joe from transforming NAP-land into Joe-land?

[FreeMoney]

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

It's just a way to live, like vegetarianism or celibacy. If you live it you live it if you don't you don't.

[FirstAscent]

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

It's just a way to live, like vegetarianism or celibacy. If you live it you live it if you don't you don't.

I have come to the conclusion that none of you actually understand how insignificant NAP is without a proper solution and answer to the question posed in this thread title.

[myrkul]

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

It's just a way to live, like vegetarianism or celibacy. If you live it you live it if you don't you don't.

I have come to the conclusion that none of you actually understand how insignificant NAP is without a proper solution and answer to the question posed in this thread title.

Answer this then: What provisions does Christianity have to stay Christianity?

[FreeMoney]

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

It's just a way to live, like vegetarianism or celibacy. If you live it you live it if you don't you don't.

I have come to the conclusion that none of you actually understand how insignificant NAP is without a proper solution and answer to the question posed in this thread title.

It might be insignificant to you that I don't go around initiating violence, but there are people including myself who find it quite significant.

Do you initiate violence?

[FirstAscent]

I don't get it. NAP has no means of remaining NAP. NAP is meaningless and useless.

It's just a way to live, like vegetarianism or celibacy. If you live it you live it if you don't you don't.

I have come to the conclusion that none of you actually understand how insignificant NAP is without a proper solution and answer to the question posed in this thread title.

Answer this then: What provisions does Christianity have to stay Christianity?

Christianity does not depend on everyone within a region being Christian to work. NAP does require everyone to be a devout NAPster, else it simply doesn't actually exist or function.

[FirstAscent]

It might be insignificant to you that I don't go around initiating violence, but there are people including myself who find it quite significant.

You find it significant that others don't initiate violence? That's neat. So because you find it significant that others don't initiate violence, then the NAP must be the best thing since sliced bread? Is that what you're saying?

Let me figure out your reasoning. There are others who aren't violent. Therefore, the NAP self enforces itself. Hmm. What's missing here? Ahh! Maybe, just maybe, an answer to the original question posed in the title of this thread!

Do you initiate violence?

No.

[myrkul]

Christianity does not depend on everyone within a region being Christian to work. NAP does, else it simply doesn't actually exist or function.

That is where you're wrong. In a region where the people follow the Non-Aggression Principle, those who do not are know as criminals. Plain and simple.

Do you initiate violence?

No.

Great! You're already following the Non-Aggression Principle. What's your problem with it, then?

[FirstAscent]

Christianity does not depend on everyone within a region being Christian to work. NAP does, else it simply doesn't actually exist or function.

That is where you're wrong. In a region where the people follow the Non-Aggression Principle, those who do not are know as criminals. Plain and simple.

Do you initiate violence?

No.

Great! You're already following the Non-Aggression Principle. What's your problem with it, then?

A lot.

1. People can be marginalized, bullied, lynched, and maimed or killed by "Y" type events.

2. The environment is destroyed by edge effects.

3. It has no provision to protect global resources.

4. The unregulated free market will (as it always does) drive the resources of diminishing natural capital into non-existence.

5. There is no consistency with regard to rules when venturing off your property.

6. It appears to be a lawsuit happy society.

7. It appears to be a society with endless tolls and fees.

8. Freedom is heavily restricted except for when on your own property, and even then that is suspect, because of the money that must be paid for protection to ensure that freedom.

9. Even if it was perfect (which it is not), it has no provision to ensure its continued survival. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91793.0

[myrkul]

9. Even if it was perfect (which it is not), it has no provision to ensure its continued survival. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91793.0

You do realize that's a link to this thread, right?

[FirstAscent]

9. Even if it was perfect (which it is not), it has no provision to ensure its continued survival. See this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91793.0

You do realize that's a link to this thread, right?

Yes. And it seems to demonstrate that nobody can offer a solution to the problem articulated in its title.

[myrkul]

nobody can offer a solution to the problem articulated in its title.

In a region where the people follow the Non-Aggression Principle, those who do not are know as criminals. Plain and simple.

[FirstAscent]

In a region where the people follow the Non-Aggression Principle, those who do not are know as criminals. Plain and simple.

Just one question, as there is something I don't understand. You said in the statement above that the people follow the non-aggression principle in said region.

Let's be clear: Imagine a neighborhood where all the houses are painted green. I ask how it will be that it can be guaranteed that all the houses will stay green. And you reply: "In a neighborhood with green-house-loving homeowners, those who paint their houses brown will be known as brown-house-loving homeowners."

Am I then supposed to assume that their is some law that is enforced which says only green house homeowners may live in this neighborhood?

Before you reply, please consider the scenario where more than half the neighborhood either has a change of heart or moves on to somewhere else. Following this, many houses are painted a different color, and then less than half of the houses remain green.

Let's examine what you said once more:

In a region where the people follow the Non-Aggression Principle, those who do not are know as criminals. Plain and simple.

Plain and simple, it is essentially a tautology.