Any pro-NAP and anti-NAP members want to try a debate... with a difference?

[FirstAscent]

Tell you what... Why don't we start with this one: you've dropped these terms, but if you've explained them, I missed it.

- Edge effects
- Checkerboard effect

To avoid cluttering this thread, you should create another about it.

I'm hesitant to do so, unless you're interested. Therefore, I'd prefer that you create it and I'll be happy to discuss it.

Have you read Healing Our World yet?

I'll start the thread on Edge effects (and related matters), and we'll discuss.

[1714103353]

1714103353

[1714103353]

1714103353

[1714103353]

1714103353

[niemivh]

I don't know how you see "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" as analogous to "that initiating force is wrong, regardless of race, religion, creed, or costume".  These seem rather divergent, that is, SMs version of the NAP is obviously true, reasonable, and worthy of the title of "moral axiom" critically depending on how you define "universally preferable".  It has potential.  But you're version isn't the same, it basically is a reactive approach to morality.  The "Never" is basically implicit in your argument.

So, you agree that of the three, "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" is the true statement? That speaks well of you.

To answer how I got from that to "that initiating force is wrong, regardless of race, religion, creed, or costume" is explained in the section "Preferences":

In this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. “Universally preferable,” then, translates to “objectively required,” but we will retain the word “preferable” to differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional physical absolutes such as gravity.

Well, what did you think, that I'm some type of ax-wielding barbarian pillager?  I'm not saying that "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" is a true statement, don't mangle my words - I'm saying that it is potentially true depending on the definition of "universally preferable".  If he defines what he means by that, then it could be true.  If it boils down to a judgment of "reasonable" then it is true, if it tries and define a ridged, procedural framework for morality then it is less true tending to false.

These statements state that we should not resort to force as a first means of "preference", but isn't that the most obvious thing in the world?  People that resort to force as a 'first preference' are typically criminals or insane people; so who is this statement of SM's supposed to apply to?  Those that already realize it's obviousness in both theory in application or those too busy committing crimes to even read anything to begin with?

Force is expensive and potentially destructive, and once force is initiated it is very hard to return to a place of reasoned discussion (if possible).  This is why people don't resort to it until all other options are exhausted, and this is typically inclusive of the State as well.  The penalty is roughly proportional to the crime in our existing system for this very reason.  You won't be thrown in prison for a speeding ticket but you'll be fined, you won't be thrown in prison for a DUI but you may lose your license, you may be thrown in prison or even executed for violent crimes that are heinous enough to warrant such reciprocity.  Notice the lack of unreasoning force in any of these applications?

I guess the problem with the NAP (whatever flavor) is those that are going to TRY and abide by it are not those that should necessarily abide by it.  The evil, oligarchical overlords that rule our system love the fact that you are hamstrung by this ideology that their fathers financed and created for this very purpose: to paralyze the moral and intelligent people into political inaction by warping, to their benefit, what the ideologue considers 'good'.  If what you consider 'good' is allowing the economic royalists to continue to rule-by-corruption of our system then count me out; if what you believe is 'good' is to not tax ill-gotten wealth that was largely stolen in the first place and return it to the commons, then count me out; if what you believe is 'good' is the maintenance of the existing system or the refusal to discuss policy in favor of utopian fantasies, deeming anything I suggest as "artificial" whilst the entire system by this same definition is "artificial" and nothing that is or should be beyond our capacity for reason to change, then count me out; if you consider it 'good' that the criminality of the biggest robber barons of our age is masked by the mystification of "The Market", then count me out; etc, etc.  The problem, of course, is that if you adhere to the NAP, as you intend it, then you are basically saying that you couldn't do anything about any of these problems, because they would be in violation of your moral principles.  So, in short, your morality prevents you from being moral.  This is of course the intention behind the creation of these cynically, politically concocted ideologies.


Another critical, and telling, problem with the NAP is that it holds the Status Quo to be some state of virtuous existence.  That restitution for previously committed crimes or situations which would naturally (and rightfully) raise the moral indignation of those with a moral compass is deemed inadmissible to the followers of Libertarianism and the NAP.  Fredric Bastiat even explicitly states this in his trash-pamphlet "The Law", that lawmakers shouldn't concern themselves with righting past injustices but should consider that people's standing in life may at present should be seen as their own moral failings.  Wouldn't the lawmaker consider both?  Why should the lawmaker tilt his perception in favor of 'blaming the people' over an objective look at reality in pursuit of what the truth is?  If you can't see that this type of rhetoric is simply oligarchical apologetics then, my friend, you are truly lost.  Oligarchs who want to freeze the movement and progress and change of the system because what power and wealth they have obtained they want to last for eternity.  Hence is the problem with all the Liberal Tradition garbage that floated across the ocean from the British Empire, it extirpates the oligarchy from the social construct.  They go from being fundamental in understanding sociology, history, economics, basically everything civic-related, to simply not existing in the obfuscation of the misconception of "Man", as such, pursuant to these doctrines.  They wrote themselves out of history.  To be a Liberal/Libertarian is to deny that a Ruling Class exists, exists for their own purposes, and has motives that are against and at the expense of the rest of the population - all you can see in this blinding, slave ideology is that Man exists and all are universally the same, and universally without difference in means, that there is no conception of the difference between Rights and Privileges, and the universal rejection of Class as a social reality.  If you don't understand Class - a true historical constant! - as fundamental to any analysis of the world, then you are truly lost and grasping in the dark.

[myrkul]

Well, what did you think, that I'm some type of ax-wielding barbarian pillager?  I'm not saying that "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" is a true statement, don't mangle my words - I'm saying that it is potentially true depending on the definition of "universally preferable".  If he defines what he means by that, then it could be true.  If it boils down to a judgment of "reasonable" then it is true, if it tries and define a ridged, procedural framework for morality then it is less true tending to false.

No, I assumed you would champion "The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences." It is explained in the quote, that "universally preferable" means "objectively required" to get the result desired. Thus, it might be better to state, in the terms of the quote from the "Preferences" section: If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.

These statements state that we should not resort to force as a first means of "preference", but isn't that the most obvious thing in the world?  People that resort to force as a 'first preference' are typically criminals or insane people; so who is this statement of SM's supposed to apply to?  Those that already realize it's obviousness in both theory in application or those too busy committing crimes to even read anything to begin with?

He addresses this in the book. Since you are reading it, I'll leave it to him to explain.

You won't be thrown in prison for a speeding ticket but you'll be fined, you won't be thrown in prison for a DUI but you may lose your license, you may be thrown in prison or even executed for violent crimes that are heinous enough to warrant such reciprocity.  Notice the lack of unreasoning force in any of these applications?

True, as far as it goes... but behind all of those actions is the threat of violence. If you speed, you haven't harmed anyone. Perhaps it can be argued that you have endangered some people, but you have not harmed anyone, and if you wish to prevent all danger, you must hide in a mile deep bunker... and even then, you must worry about earthquakes. So what about this increased risk warrants the reciprocity of stealing money from the speeder? And what if the speeder refuses to pay? What then? Again, he has done nothing to harm anyone, merely said "no" to some people who say that he owes them money for no reason.

I guess the problem with the NAP (whatever flavor) is those that are going to TRY and abide by it are not those that should necessarily abide by it.  The evil, oligarchical overlords that rule our system love the fact that you are hamstrung by this ideology that their fathers financed and created for this very purpose: to paralyze the moral and intelligent people into political inaction by warping, to their benefit, what the ideologue considers 'good'.

I find it interesting that you defend taxation as a just policy. Those selfsame "Evil Oligarchs" can afford high-end tax attorneys and charitable donations to pay little or nothing. It's a large infographic, so I won't clutter this already extensive post with it, but please do check out this nifty little workup that H&R Block put together to compare Bruce Wayne with Peter Parker... https://chzheroes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/funny-celebrity-pictures-roflrazzi-superhero-economics-bruce-wayne-vs-peter-parker.jpg Stealing from people to redistribute wealth will not end with a fair distribution, and will be inefficient to boot. The market allows the money to flow, naturally, to those best able to utilize it. The only people who will be poor are those who are wasteful, poor at managing money, or lazy.

Another critical, and telling, problem with the NAP is that it holds the Status Quo to be some state of virtuous existence.  That restitution for previously committed crimes or situations which would naturally (and rightfully) raise the moral indignation of those with a moral compass is deemed inadmissible to the followers of Libertarianism and the NAP.

I don't know where you came to this conclusion. Restitution is a key component of Libertarian thought, and is especially important in Anarchist strategies.

As to the ruling class... What sets them aside from, or above, the rest of us? Are they granted some divine right? Do they have some genetic advantage? What makes them fundamentally different from everyone else?

[niemivh]

Well, what did you think, that I'm some type of ax-wielding barbarian pillager?  I'm not saying that "It is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force" is a true statement, don't mangle my words - I'm saying that it is potentially true depending on the definition of "universally preferable".  If he defines what he means by that, then it could be true.  If it boils down to a judgment of "reasonable" then it is true, if it tries and define a ridged, procedural framework for morality then it is less true tending to false.

No, I assumed you would champion "The initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences." It is explained in the quote, that "universally preferable" means "objectively required" to get the result desired. Thus, it might be better to state, in the terms of the quote from the "Preferences" section: If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.

These statements state that we should not resort to force as a first means of "preference", but isn't that the most obvious thing in the world?  People that resort to force as a 'first preference' are typically criminals or insane people; so who is this statement of SM's supposed to apply to?  Those that already realize it's obviousness in both theory in application or those too busy committing crimes to even read anything to begin with?

He addresses this in the book. Since you are reading it, I'll leave it to him to explain.

Fine, I'll read the book then, but if the 'answers' to the questions I have are as vague as the one's you posted above, all I'm going to have is more questions.

You won't be thrown in prison for a speeding ticket but you'll be fined, you won't be thrown in prison for a DUI but you may lose your license, you may be thrown in prison or even executed for violent crimes that are heinous enough to warrant such reciprocity.  Notice the lack of unreasoning force in any of these applications?

True, as far as it goes... but behind all of those actions is the threat of violence. If you speed, you haven't harmed anyone. Perhaps it can be argued that you have endangered some people, but you have not harmed anyone, and if you wish to prevent all danger, you must hide in a mile deep bunker... and even then, you must worry about earthquakes. So what about this increased risk warrants the reciprocity of stealing money from the speeder? And what if the speeder refuses to pay? What then? Again, he has done nothing to harm anyone, merely said "no" to some people who say that he owes them money for no reason.

Once again Libertarianism is an unworkable system following your logic.  I'm not arguing that your ideological purity could work in some fictional lucid dream state in your mind, that's fine, I'm talking about the actual physical world we co-inhabit.  The result of Libertarian ideology is: Moral Degeneracy -->  Chaos/Anarchy -->  Dictatorship/Totalitarianism/Civil-War; while the professed result of it is supposedly: Ideological Tenants -->  Never Before Seen, Anti-Historical, Ill-logical, Utopia.  The ideology is radically anti-civilization, that everyone gets to live by their own laws and their own rules regardless of the harm or risk of harm they are exposing to the rest of the population.  It raises the question: if you (or any Libertarians out there) would like to 'put their money where their mouth is' then why won't you move to Antarctica or some otherwise deeply remote region where you could 'live in peace' completely alone and alienated?  Although you would be surely taking supplies into that scenario that could have only been created by civilization, that being, of course, basically every modern technology and product available.

Why does the individual get to unilaterally decide what they wish to follow with regard to the safety, welfare and preservation of the rest of the group?  Isn't it up to the group how they are going to define their own safety, well-being and protection? 

I guess the problem with the NAP (whatever flavor) is those that are going to TRY and abide by it are not those that should necessarily abide by it.  The evil, oligarchical overlords that rule our system love the fact that you are hamstrung by this ideology that their fathers financed and created for this very purpose: to paralyze the moral and intelligent people into political inaction by warping, to their benefit, what the ideologue considers 'good'.

I find it interesting that you defend taxation as a just policy. Those selfsame "Evil Oligarchs" can afford high-end tax attorneys and charitable donations to pay little or nothing. It's a large infographic, so I won't clutter this already extensive post with it, but please do check out this nifty little workup that H&R Block put together to compare Bruce Wayne with Peter Parker... https://chzheroes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/funny-celebrity-pictures-roflrazzi-superhero-economics-bruce-wayne-vs-peter-parker.jpg Stealing from people to redistribute wealth will not end with a fair distribution, and will be inefficient to boot. The market allows the money to flow, naturally, to those best able to utilize it. The only people who will be poor are those who are wasteful, poor at managing money, or lazy.

So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?  That the policy that we need to pursue for our own salvation and survival is impossible because it 'could never happen'?  Well that is the kind of attitude that is going to lose us what remains of our Republic.  I hope your food stocks, water filtration systems and guns are able to last you long enough to live out your life in peace.  In the morality of Libertarianism it is 'good' to desire the ruination of civilization so you can plan to gloat over it's future corpse.  Sorry to inform you that we're actually all in this together and if we go down (as you are feverishly working toward in promotion of your ideology) then you come down with us.  We are all on the same boat, the S.S. Modern Civilization.  Of course the meme of holding your tongue and 'saving face' to not actually involving yourself in the active creation of anything worthwhile is widespread; the entire culture has largely devolved into a schadenfreudian blame game where everyone is content to sit back and predict the worsening of the system which will manifest by virtue of their inaction.  After civilization is destroyed I hope you don't get sick because you won't have access to modern medicine.  You should probably quit typing on this forum and go plant a crop for your very subsistence before the proverbial 'shit hits the fan'.
*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.  In this we see the myth of Total Ownership and the Utopian dream-world of Anarchism.  Without a better system (or even a logically coherent one) to propose, what do you have to offer as a framework to organize society?  Assuming you like living in society and wouldn't rather return to being a primitive animal as all your doctrines are in full alignment of being in support of.
*  The mythology of The Market:  Ignoring actual economics, ignoring game theory, ignoring everyday examples to the contrary.  What, pray tell, "Market" are you referring to?  You assume that you can rigorously define "Market" and that that system you define would be "natural", when in fact, it would be just as artificial as any other social construct.  Perhaps I should start defining all my arguments and everything that I'm in favor of as "the natural" state of being when in reality all these things hinge solely on human choice and human will to define the system as they intend.  How could someone be fooled by such hollow rhetoric?  We see Utopian thinking again in your reasoning of your fictional "Market" (that you I defy you to define) as being able to provide everyone what they are capable of achieving and the universal 'set-it-and-forget-it' future arbitrator of all Justice.

Another critical, and telling, problem with the NAP is that it holds the Status Quo to be some state of virtuous existence.  That restitution for previously committed crimes or situations which would naturally (and rightfully) raise the moral indignation of those with a moral compass is deemed inadmissible to the followers of Libertarianism and the NAP.

I don't know where you came to this conclusion. Restitution is a key component of Libertarian thought, and is especially important in Anarchist strategies.

As to the ruling class... What sets them aside from, or above, the rest of us? Are they granted some divine right? Do they have some genetic advantage? What makes them fundamentally different from everyone else?

I can't believe that you don't see your own contradiction.  If force, as outlined by the NAP, is against the ideals of Libertarian Thought then what "restitution" could you possibly be referring to?  How would "restitution" not require force?  Is "restitution" not fundamental to a legal system which seeks to compensate those who were wronged by, indeed, use of force? Is there an initial requirement of force to enact the universal principles of Libertarianism (in order to 'reset the scoreboard', so to speak) where thereafter we will be ruled by Libertarian Thought as the logical, rational and moral conclusion?  In short, how do you reconcile the stark incompatibility of NAP and "restitution" as a "key component" nonetheless?

There is nothing legitimate that should set the ruling class above us.  That's why I seek further things that can ameliorate this discrepancy.  What do you propose?  To deride their power over us in insults or indifference to the reality of their power over us?  My solution is to remove that power they have by taking it away, indeed, by use of force, through the legal system.  Your solution appears to be: pretend it doesn't exist or downplay it's scope, or to provide Utopian solutions to the problem.  Only one of these solutions has ever effectively done anything positive throughout all of history and HOW to remove this undue, unjust, corrupting power SHOULD be the topic of the conversation.

Historically the ruling class oligarchy has claimed all the things you profess, divine right, genetic superiority was popular during the first half of the 20th century among the ruling elites; an infinite number of scams, frauds and deceptions have occurred to protect the ruling class.  As I've learned more and more about history, economics, civics, moral philosophy, and everything else I can take in to expand my awareness it is becoming clearer and clearer that the majority of things (meme's if you like) in our present culture (and not exclusively popular culture, although it is clearly more prevalent in popular culture) are there largely to support the ruling class.  The majority of what people think is false; and false by what could only be described as the intentional creation of lies by the only people who could benefit in the immediate from said creation of lies: the ruling class.  The examples are more numerous than I have time for here and have chosen to focus specifically upon Libertarianism for my book project. 

[niemivh]

So I read that part on the NAP by Steven Molyneux.  It was as banal and horrible as I remember his vlogs being.  It didn't do anything to solve any of these problems I have posed regarding the NAP on this and other threads.

[myrkul]

Fine, I'll read the book then, but if the 'answers' to the questions I have are as vague as the one's you posted above, all I'm going to have is more questions.

Thank you, but I would appreciate a response to the following statement:
If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is universally preferable not to ingest a handful of arsenic.

It raises the question: if you (or any Libertarians out there) would like to 'put their money where their mouth is' then why won't you move to Antarctica or some otherwise deeply remote region where you could 'live in peace' completely alone and alienated?

http://freestateproject.org/

Why does the individual get to unilaterally decide what they wish to follow with regard to the safety, welfare and preservation of the rest of the group?  Isn't it up to the group how they are going to define their own safety, well-being and protection? 

A group does not "decide" anything. Individuals decide things. the closest a group comes to making a decision is taking a vote. That is, each individual makes a decision, and lets that decision be known to the rest of the group. Unless this vote is unanimous, any acting on that vote represents the majority of that group forcing their decision upon the minority. Why does the majority get to unilaterally decide anything for the minority?

The individual making a decision to speed, or not wear a seatbelt, or smoke a cigarette, is taking a risk. If that risk harms someone else, they are liable for recompense, also known as restitution.

So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?

Any system by which we attempted to tax them would be corrupted. If they've done it once, they'll do it again.

*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.

Is it anything else?

*  The mythology of The Market:  Ignoring actual economics, ignoring game theory, ignoring everyday examples to the contrary.  What, pray tell, "Market" are you referring to?

The market is the sum of all voluntary actions. No more, no less. In other words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=5.0

I can't believe that you don't see your own contradiction.  If force, as outlined by the NAP, is against the ideals of Libertarian Thought then what "restitution" could you possibly be referring to? How would "restitution" not require force?  Is "restitution" not fundamental to a legal system which seeks to compensate those who were wronged by, indeed, use of force? Is there an initial requirement of force to enact the universal principles of Libertarianism (in order to 'reset the scoreboard', so to speak) where thereafter we will be ruled by Libertarian Thought as the logical, rational and moral conclusion?  In short, how do you reconcile the stark incompatibility of NAP and "restitution" as a "key component" nonetheless?
 

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with Jainism. Initiating force is a violation of the NAP. If a crime has been committed, then restitution, righting that wrong, is perfectly acceptable.

There is nothing legitimate that should set the ruling class above us.

Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. Libertarianism is the radical notion that since the "ruling elite" are no different from any other person, that they be held to the same standards. The best way to remove the power that they claim to hold over the rest of us is to simply ignore it. I suggest you read the book I have posted, the New Libertarian Manifesto, which details this concept.

[dancupid]

So we have a principle that is ignored by most humans and other living things and fundamentally contradicts the way evolution actually happens - a theory that has aggression at it's heart, and yet we are discussing it, like Buddhists in a monastery?
I've read this thread and to me it's very odd. No one lives their lives through philosophical concepts. They respond to the reality of their situation at that moment.
No one starts with philosophy. Even basic logic is ignored by most people - becasue being alive is irrational.
Human beings are a type of animal responding to the palpable reality of their existence at that moment.
How do we persuade all living things to follow NAP? (or does it only apply to humans becasue humans are special higher animals?).
Enjoy your hamburger and then think about the aggression that went into making it.

[myrkul]

How do we persuade all living things to follow NAP? (or does it only apply to humans becasue humans are special higher animals?).
Enjoy your hamburger and then think about the aggression that went into making it.

When cannibalism becomes acceptable or you have a long conversation with a cow, your argument might have merit. Until then, yes, humans are special, because we reason, and communicate.

[dancupid]

How do we persuade all living things to follow NAP? (or does it only apply to humans becasue humans are special higher animals?).
Enjoy your hamburger and then think about the aggression that went into making it.

When cannibalism becomes acceptable or you have a long conversation with a cow, your argument might have merit. Until then, yes, humans are special, because we reason, and communicate.

So the principal is species specific and is dependent on the ability to have a meaningful conversation. They have to understand the rudiments of logic at least.
Aggression against living things that struggle with human conversation are excluded from the principal. Babies and the mentally ill are to be treated as a special case I presume.

[myrkul]

So the principal is species specific and is dependent on the ability to have a meaningful conversation. They have to understand the rudiments of logic at least.

Well, that goes without saying, doesn't it? Something cannot adhere to the non-aggression principle if it cannot have it rationally explained to it.

[niemivh]

Fine, I'll read the book then, but if the 'answers' to the questions I have are as vague as the one's you posted above, all I'm going to have is more questions.

Thank you, but I would appreciate a response to the following statement:
If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is universally preferable not to ingest a handful of arsenic.

Again, what do we mean by "universally preferable"?  That isn't as clear of a term as both Steven Molyneux and you are pretending it is.  Those two words combined have many potential meanings.  Am I to take those words at dictionary, face value?  In what context and in what sense?  Or are they defined in some other means in the writings of Steven Molyneux?  This is the problem with all this Libertarian ideology is that they create these ingenious little juxtapositions of words that either obfuscate their intentions or scuttle a true understanding of the topic discussed.  They use these rhetorical Trojan horses as means of indoctrinating the unobserved to their ideological adherents.  Hayek used "collectivism", Bastiat used "plunder", Hazlitt's was perhaps "the forgotten man", Ron Paul uses them all, and all of them are a way to evoke emotional responses and pretend to have a discussion - BUT to the careful reader you see that they never define their terms and that that is not at all surprising.  Sophistry and Ideology are ALWAYS a war and an assault against language, it is a form of intentionally being vague and intentionally trying to create confusions in the topic they are supposedly attempting to lay bare.  In an argument, or in a "school of thought", whenever you see the wording being abused and misused a 'red flag' should go up that you are trying to be played.

The problem with saying that any logical construct, such as the NAP, lay between the actions you are taking, choices you are making, or any otherwise moral decisions and the universal platonic axiom "of justice" is that it does nothing but get in the way.  Like I was mentioning earlier we could spend the rest of our lives defining justice through specific actions but never would be able to fully codify justice into a set of ridged and strict procedures.  This obvious truth should raise the question in everyone's mind: if we identify an action, law or choice that nobody has ever considered before and innately know if it is an action in accordance with justice, then where did that knowledge come from?  How is it that we have an innate knowing about such things?  Justice, like a conception of a circle, resides, in its most true form, in the realm of thought or noosphere.  Creating artificial, mechanistic, procedural filters might seem useful, but it fact it is not - it is counterproductive to understanding justice.  We could think of a myriad list of scenarios to which this version of the NAP applies that would harmonize with what we know justice to be, and in that sense, all these supposed Libertarian axioms are all true - except when they are not; and such is my criticism of them: something that has exceptions is not an axiomatic expression of morality and is not wisdom. Concurrently we could apply this version of the NAP to scenarios in which it is not preferable, and abiding by the NAP would, in fact, be a greater injustice than simply letting the scales fall from our eyes and acting in accordance with what we know is right.

It raises the question: if you (or any Libertarians out there) would like to 'put their money where their mouth is' then why won't you move to Antarctica or some otherwise deeply remote region where you could 'live in peace' completely alone and alienated?

http://freestateproject.org/

Nothing new here, just the same old yapping.

Why does the individual get to unilaterally decide what they wish to follow with regard to the safety, welfare and preservation of the rest of the group?  Isn't it up to the group how they are going to define their own safety, well-being and protection? 

A group does not "decide" anything. Individuals decide things. the closest a group comes to making a decision is taking a vote. That is, each individual makes a decision, and lets that decision be known to the rest of the group. Unless this vote is unanimous, any acting on that vote represents the majority of that group forcing their decision upon the minority. Why does the majority get to unilaterally decide anything for the minority?

The individual making a decision to speed, or not wear a seatbelt, or smoke a cigarette, is taking a risk. If that risk harms someone else, they are liable for recompense, also known as restitution.

Oh my, let us please not split hairs here.  I'm trying to use conversational language for a general audience.  If you read my earlier posts on the NAP regarding Society then you should know that I'm not saying that a aggregation of individuals 'makes decisions', as such, I'm speaking generally for the sake of what little brevity I can possibly muster by using general terms.  In a forum consisting generally of ostentatious Libertarians I should know better.   

Majority rule is something that is rather innate to social aggregations; it isn't like someone invented it, if individuals of a group largely agree on anything then that is typically the way the social structure is governed simply by default.  There isn't any way to otherwise conduct the affairs of society that would be in concurrence with 100% consensus - it is totally impossible and ridiculous and you haven't presented: any logical coherent framework that can solve this 'problem', any historical example that could solve this 'problem', any legal framework that could solve this 'problem', nothing.  So until you figure out how to design your perfect utopia and how to get us there from where we are, then we are left with other solutions.  My solution, being from the traditional American System, is majority rule with the rights of individuals protected by law.  If we worked in this framework we would all individually have much more actual, tangible, pragmatic, real, concrete, legitimate, economic and social freedom and liberty; not the will-o-wisps promised by the Libertarian schools.  I think that all this fear of the group largely stems from a fear of knowing your interdependence with the rest of society, then noticing how degraded and debased they have become, and then pretending that you 'simply don't need them' and can chant these Liberal/Libertarian doctrines and soothe your conscious, believing that somehow their plight is not your own.  Well it is unfortunate, for all those that are content to 'hunker in their bunkers', that the opposite is the truth.

So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?

Any system by which we attempted to tax them would be corrupted. If they've done it once, they'll do it again.

And we can fix it again, our survival literally depends upon it.  There is a perpetual class-struggle that is invisible and ignored by the victims of the Liberal Doctrine.  Even someone as sold out as Bill Clinton was able to raise the higher bracket tax rates, how can you explain that if we are to believe (that you seemingly do) that the rich are some type of Brahmin, untouchable class in our existing system?  They are not, but pretending that their 'victory' is inevitable does nothing but hasten their grip on our system and hastens the eventual collapse and destruction of the system that results whenever oligarchy has fully taken grasp of the power in any society.  Most stark and recent examples being Russia in the 1990s.

*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.

Is it anything else?

Here's my challenge.  Whenever you complain about anything or decry its injustice I want you to frame it in the better context of a new system (that is functional, logical coherent, preferably historic in nature) and argue for that over the existing system.  But not to simply complain about it in a vacuum as if it doesn't exist for any present reason. 

I'm not going to go repeating the questions and absurdities that arise in a system where we consider "tax = theft", it's too sophomoric and imbecilic.  However I will agree with you that over-taxation is unjust and is something approaching or within the spirit of theft.  But that's a broad discussion.  The reason that these "tax is theft" arguments have traction is that the middle class pays an overwhelming percentage of the taxes in this country if you look at: proportional taxation, and (I'd say more importantly) what the average middle-class worker gets for their level of (over) taxation.  I posted earlier my tax policy and, if my policies were enacted then you're tax burden would fall dramatically and it would go to those that presently pay little or nothing, while reducing the national debt dramatically.  But this all requires that we fight for it and know what is in our best interest.

*  The mythology of The Market:  Ignoring actual economics, ignoring game theory, ignoring everyday examples to the contrary.  What, pray tell, "Market" are you referring to?

The market is the sum of all voluntary actions. No more, no less. In other words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=5.0

Like I said in my Ron Paul book review: "Of course Ron Paul also cites the Myth of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market. The Free Market is just an allusion to actually having a policy discussion. You can simply wave your hand, point over the horizon, and say that the Free Market / Invisible Hand will solve our problems."

Besides the point that you simply ignored the things I posited against this allusion you apparently know nothing about Game Theory.  Which I find to be completely fundamental to any understanding any actual functions of the market (the real one, not the Zeus-God of Libertarianism).  Are you aware that your non-conception of "The Market", as such, is an undigested shibboleth, a black-hole of rhetorical discussion?  You can simply route all arguments to the following argumentative memory-holes:  "The Market", "Choice", the "NAP", "Self Ownership", etc.  All of these things actually have zero meaning or nebulous meaning that changes to suit the sophist that is weaving those arguments.  And notice how this little 'tool belt' of rhetorical blurbs supposedly arms the ideologue with a "solution" to every possible problem or question that could possible arise in a discussion of these topics?  You can literally read a single Libertarian book and become a full policy expert on any possible facet of: civic policy, social policy, economic policy, morality, etc.  It is the handbook for those blinded by their own pride of the want of knowledge and blinded by their own lack of humility; believing that the world could be so simple.

Here's a great lecture on game theory:  http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1426 (you can probably find it elsewhere for free, library, etc).
This one is quite "businessy" but worthwhile:  http://www.amazon.com/Game-Theory-Business-Primer-Strategic/dp/0964793873/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342209349&sr=1-9&keywords=game+theory

A great theoretical primer:  http://www.amazon.com/Game-Theory-Analysis-Roger-Myerson/dp/0674341163/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342209349&sr=1-10&keywords=game+theory

I can't believe that you don't see your own contradiction.  If force, as outlined by the NAP, is against the ideals of Libertarian Thought then what "restitution" could you possibly be referring to? How would "restitution" not require force?  Is "restitution" not fundamental to a legal system which seeks to compensate those who were wronged by, indeed, use of force? Is there an initial requirement of force to enact the universal principles of Libertarianism (in order to 'reset the scoreboard', so to speak) where thereafter we will be ruled by Libertarian Thought as the logical, rational and moral conclusion?  In short, how do you reconcile the stark incompatibility of NAP and "restitution" as a "key component" nonetheless?
 

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with Jainism. Initiating force is a violation of the NAP. If a crime has been committed, then restitution, righting that wrong, is perfectly acceptable.

Oh no, out come the shoe-boxes with all the labels on them!  Again the pedantry of the Libertarians is always stunning.  This last sentence contradicts so much of what you've said on this forum before that I am at a loss of words what to say.  Shaking off my dazed expression, I ask: define "crime", define the statute of limitations of that crime, who is the initiator of force in this context?

There is nothing legitimate that should set the ruling class above us.

Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. Libertarianism is the radical notion that since the "ruling elite" are no different from any other person, that they be held to the same standards. The best way to remove the power that they claim to hold over the rest of us is to simply ignore it. I suggest you read the book I have posted, the New Libertarian Manifesto, which details this concept.

Should I pull my "blankey" over my head while I "ignore it" or do you recommend hiding under my bed?  Ignoring what we're going through it like saying you can simply "ignore" forced buggery.  Again, we see the cowardice of the modern man fully expressed, I call it "the retreat into the subjective self" where the individual simply 'writes off' the real world because they have believed the rigorous and ubiquitous social conditioning that they've been exposed to, to perfect their own learned helplessness.  We see it with the far Left and their "you create your own reality" garbage and we see it with the Rugged Individualism of the Right with their blindness of the awareness of our social codependency.  Both of these are a jettisoning of our social duties and both of them breed weakness, cowardice, isolation and eventual misery in the people professing them.  Not to mention that they are the ideology of defeat, of apathy, or weakness and of ruination among the populace; all of which greatly serve the historical needs of oligarchy.

[myrkul]

Again, what do we mean by "universally preferable"?  That isn't as clear of a term as both Steven Molyneux and you are pretending it is.  Those two words combined have many potential meanings.  Am I to take those words at dictionary, face value?  In what context and in what sense?  Or are they defined in some other means in the writings of Steven Molyneux? 

Oh, for fuck's sake, We've already defined it.

In this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. “Universally preferable,” then, translates to “objectively required,” but we will retain the word “preferable” to differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional physical absolutes such as gravity.

You're treading dangerously close to pedantry for pedantry's sake.

Is this better?: "If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic."

http://freestateproject.org/

Nothing new here, just the same old yapping.

translation: Shit! I asked when you guys were going to "do it", and you actually are right now!!! Abort! Abort!

My solution, being from the traditional American System, is majority rule with the rights of individuals protected by law. 

Care to explain how individual rights are protected when 50.00001% of the population can force their decisions upon the other 49.99999%, including changing this "law"?

So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?

Any system by which we attempted to tax them would be corrupted. If they've done it once, they'll do it again.

And we can fix it again, our survival literally depends upon it. 

Or..... We can use a different system, instead of trying the same system again, hoping to "get it right this time."

*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.

Is it anything else?

Here's my challenge.  Whenever you complain about anything or decry its injustice I want you to frame it in the better context of a new system (that is functional, logical coherent, preferably historic in nature) and argue for that over the existing system.  But not to simply complain about it in a vacuum as if it doesn't exist for any present reason. 
 

'k. Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...

*  The mythology of The Market:  Ignoring actual economics, ignoring game theory, ignoring everyday examples to the contrary.  What, pray tell, "Market" are you referring to?

The market is the sum of all voluntary actions. No more, no less. In other words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=5.0

Like I said in my Ron Paul book review: "Of course Ron Paul also cites the Myth of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market. The Free Market is just an allusion to actually having a policy discussion. You can simply wave your hand, point over the horizon, and say that the Free Market / Invisible Hand will solve our problems."

Would you prefer if I said that free people, making decisions, in aggregate, will discover the right solution, and, once that solution is discovered, tend to choose that solution again and again?

I'd also like to point out that this theory is supported by game theory, and historical evidence.

I ask: define "crime", define the statute of limitations of that crime, who is the initiator of force in this context?

"crime" is initiation of force, or otherwise violating the NAP (fraud, threat of force, etc). Statue of limitations? Why, simply by getting away with it for some period of time, should they be allowed to get away with it forever? And, of course, the initiator of force is by definition the criminal.

There is nothing legitimate that should set the ruling class above us.

Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. Libertarianism is the radical notion that since the "ruling elite" are no different from any other person, that they be held to the same standards. The best way to remove the power that they claim to hold over the rest of us is to simply ignore it. I suggest you read the book I have posted, the New Libertarian Manifesto, which details this concept.

Should I pull my "blankey" over my head while I "ignore it" or do you recommend hiding under my bed? 

Cute. No, I suggest you live your life as much as possible without bowing to that power. Again, the NLM that I posted over in the Book Club details this strategy.

[niemivh]

Again, what do we mean by "universally preferable"?  That isn't as clear of a term as both Steven Molyneux and you are pretending it is.  Those two words combined have many potential meanings.  Am I to take those words at dictionary, face value?  In what context and in what sense?  Or are they defined in some other means in the writings of Steven Molyneux?  

Oh, for fuck's sake, We've already defined it.

In this sense, “preferable” does not mean “sort of better,” but rather “required.” If you want to live, it is universally preferable that you refrain from eating a handful of arsenic. If you wish to determine valid truths about reality, it is universally preferable that your theories be both internally consistent and empirically verifiable. “Universally preferable,” then, translates to “objectively required,” but we will retain the word “preferable” to differentiate between optional human absolutes and non-optional physical absolutes such as gravity.

You're treading dangerously close to pedantry for pedantry's sake.

Is this better?: "If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic."

Thanks for that definition.  It's as I thought, he doesn't mean what he says.  "Universally preferable", to him, means "required" although it contains the trappings of the words to make it more palpable.  Why not say "morally required behavior"?  Of course, because that would seem authoritarian.  So he says "Universally Preferable*", in where you read the * below and he says "Preferable = Required".  We are talking simple definition of words and he's exposed (as you illustrate) as abusing the definition of the words and muddying the language - and yet! - I'm seen as pedantic.  How perfectly backward.  Yes, the audacity of me, wanting clear and honest language in a discussion.  

http://freestateproject.org/

Nothing new here, just the same old yapping.

translation: Shit! I asked when you guys were going to "do it", and you actually are right now!!! Abort! Abort!

I guess that's the benefit of not having an concrete ideals or principles behind your 'belief-system', you get to claim whatever you like is inclusive of your belief system or not depending on the time of day, your mood or indigestion or whatever.  Apparently, this is your anarchist Utopia, although the FSP promotes: "... the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."  Meaning that there is a government.  Meaning that it is opposed to what you've said prior.  Hey, if you can't be consistent then how can you expect anyone to discuss anything with you?

My solution, being from the traditional American System, is majority rule with the rights of individuals protected by law.

Care to explain how individual rights are protected when 50.00001% of the population can force their decisions upon the other 49.99999%, including changing this "law"?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

The ultimate joke is that this system has been humming along fairly well for hundreds of years and you, as new to the scene as a new-born puppy, are enraged and claiming, in effect: "how could this system possibly work?!"  Ignoring that it is working every day for you - and fairly well, all things considered.  Perhaps you should take a community college class on Constitutional Law.

So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?

Any system by which we attempted to tax them would be corrupted. If they've done it once, they'll do it again.

And we can fix it again, our survival literally depends upon it.  

Or..... We can use a different system, instead of trying the same system again, hoping to "get it right this time."

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  --Thomas Jefferson

I'm still waiting for you to propose your system.  Still waiting.

*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.

Is it anything else?

Here's my challenge.  Whenever you complain about anything or decry its injustice I want you to frame it in the better context of a new system (that is functional, logical coherent, preferably historic in nature) and argue for that over the existing system.  But not to simply complain about it in a vacuum as if it doesn't exist for any present reason.  
 

'k. Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...

To simply cut to the chase and avoid what I've asked to your deaf ears repeatedly I'll simply personalize the situation to your specific existence.

Q:  Were you ever a baby/child/adolescent?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

*  The mythology of The Market:  Ignoring actual economics, ignoring game theory, ignoring everyday examples to the contrary.  What, pray tell, "Market" are you referring to?

The market is the sum of all voluntary actions. No more, no less. In other words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=5.0

Like I said in my Ron Paul book review: "Of course Ron Paul also cites the Myth of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market. The Free Market is just an allusion to actually having a policy discussion. You can simply wave your hand, point over the horizon, and say that the Free Market / Invisible Hand will solve our problems."

Would you prefer if I said that free people, making decisions, in aggregate, will discover the right solution, and, once that solution is discovered, tend to choose that solution again and again?

I'd also like to point out that this theory is supported by game theory, and historical evidence.

I ask: define "crime", define the statute of limitations of that crime, who is the initiator of force in this context?

"crime" is initiation of force, or otherwise violating the NAP (fraud, threat of force, etc). Statue of limitations? Why, simply by getting away with it for some period of time, should they be allowed to get away with it forever? And, of course, the initiator of force is by definition the criminal.

Crime is the definition of the initiation of force, and, initiation of force is criminal.  Well thanks for exposing your circular logic and/or Aristotelian underpinnings to your mind's frameworks.

There is nothing legitimate that should set the ruling class above us.

Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. Libertarianism is the radical notion that since the "ruling elite" are no different from any other person, that they be held to the same standards. The best way to remove the power that they claim to hold over the rest of us is to simply ignore it. I suggest you read the book I have posted, the New Libertarian Manifesto, which details this concept.

Should I pull my "blankey" over my head while I "ignore it" or do you recommend hiding under my bed?  

Cute. No, I suggest you live your life as much as possible without bowing to that power. Again, the NLM that I posted over in the Book Club details this strategy.

Great, I'll put it on my stack; hopefully it will have some answers that are, so far, never forthcoming from your responses.  Libertarianism is like some type of secret society or religion where you are always promised some greater level of understanding just around the corner and yet when you get 'there', there is another sign saying that the higher truth is 'just around the corner'.  It's a never ending spiral of rhetoric and nonsense - that is, so far.  But hey, I'm an open-minded person, my ideas change all the time as they become increasingly less false, I'll give it a read.  

It is unfortunate that you didn't answer any of the most leveling questions that I laid against your previous response.  You seemingly want to chase the more trifling and peripheral things around these arguments.

[myrkul]

Is this better?: "If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic."

Thanks for that definition.  

Still waiting for a response to the phrase itself, rather than the wording. I'm not holding my breath, though, so feel free to continue to evade.

http://freestateproject.org/

Nothing new here, just the same old yapping.

translation: Shit! I asked when you guys were going to "do it", and you actually are right now!!! Abort! Abort!

I guess that's the benefit of not having an concrete ideals or principles behind your 'belief-system', you get to claim whatever you like is inclusive of your belief system or not depending on the time of day, your mood or indigestion or whatever.  Apparently, this is your anarchist Utopia, although the FSP promotes: "... the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."  Meaning that there is a government.  Meaning that it is opposed to what you've said prior.  Hey, if you can't be consistent then how can you expect anyone to discuss anything with you?

Let's read that phrase again, shall we? Let's pay special attention to the wording: "... the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

Hmm.... "maximum". That specifies an upper limit. Is there any word in there that specifies a lower limit? hmm.... I don't see one, but maybe you do? With no lower limit, "No role" is still within the bounds of that statement. There are numerous anarchists in the FSP.

My solution, being from the traditional American System, is majority rule with the rights of individuals protected by law.

Care to explain how individual rights are protected when 50.00001% of the population can force their decisions upon the other 49.99999%, including changing this "law"?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

The ultimate joke is that this system has been humming along fairly well for hundreds of years and you, as new to the scene as a new-born puppy, are enraged and claiming, in effect: "how could this system possibly work?!"  Ignoring that it is working every day for you - and fairly well, all things considered.  Perhaps you should take a community college class on Constitutional Law.

I wouldn't say that a system that almost immediately had to put down a violent rebellion as "humming along fairly well", especially considering the current state of that "piece of paper"

So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?

Any system by which we attempted to tax them would be corrupted. If they've done it once, they'll do it again.

And we can fix it again, our survival literally depends upon it.  

Or..... We can use a different system, instead of trying the same system again, hoping to "get it right this time."

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  --Thomas Jefferson

I'm still waiting for you to propose your system.  Still waiting.

See my proposed system below.

*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.

Is it anything else?

Here's my challenge.  Whenever you complain about anything or decry its injustice I want you to frame it in the better context of a new system (that is functional, logical coherent, preferably historic in nature) and argue for that over the existing system.  But not to simply complain about it in a vacuum as if it doesn't exist for any present reason.  
 

'k. Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...

To simply cut to the chase and avoid what I've asked to your deaf ears repeatedly I'll simply personalize the situation to your specific existence.

Q:  Were you ever a baby/child/adolescent?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Nope, I sprung, full-formed, from my mother's womb. Didn't you?

Would you prefer if I said that free people, making decisions, in aggregate, will discover the right solution, and, once that solution is discovered, tend to choose that solution again and again?

I'd also like to point out that this theory is supported by game theory, and historical evidence.

Since you don't refute, or even address this point, I will assume you agree with it.

"crime" is initiation of force, or otherwise violating the NAP (fraud, threat of force, etc). Statue of limitations? Why, simply by getting away with it for some period of time, should they be allowed to get away with it forever? And, of course, the initiator of force is by definition the criminal.

Crime is the definition of the initiation of force, and, initiation of force is criminal.  Well thanks for exposing your circular logic and/or Aristotelian underpinnings to your mind's frameworks.

If robbery is defined as a crime, is it circular reasoning to define a robber as a criminal?

There is nothing legitimate that should set the ruling class above us.

Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. Libertarianism is the radical notion that since the "ruling elite" are no different from any other person, that they be held to the same standards. The best way to remove the power that they claim to hold over the rest of us is to simply ignore it. I suggest you read the book I have posted, the New Libertarian Manifesto, which details this concept.

Should I pull my "blankey" over my head while I "ignore it" or do you recommend hiding under my bed?  

Cute. No, I suggest you live your life as much as possible without bowing to that power. Again, the NLM that I posted over in the Book Club details this strategy.

Great, I'll put it on my stack;

Good, that's all I can really ask.

[niemivh]

Is this better?: "If you wish to have a peaceful society, it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force, much in the same way that if you wish to continue life, it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic."

Thanks for that definition.  

Still waiting for a response to the phrase itself, rather than the wording. I'm not holding my breath, though, so feel free to continue to evade.

I evade nothing.  Do you really think that I'm scared or in avoidance of trying to answer these questions?  It is just that I don't have to engage in word games as part of my ideological conditioning.  I want clear language because this is where they shell-games occur in Libertarianism, they misuse and abuse words until they are meaningless and allow their dupes to follow them, completely in a stupor.

Now regarding the quote specifically.  Is the intent of saying "ingesting a handful of arsenic" saying that that is tantamount to suicide?  I assume so.  Who is required to follow this doctrine?  Every single person?  If that is the case then you don't have society much less a peaceful one; you would have some type of warlord, ruling council or tribal leader who's power would be near absolute or completely absolute - OR, of course, you'd have the Utopia of your mind's eye that is impossible, if not actually undefinable.  If saying that not following the non-initiation of force is "objectively required" for "continued life" then that is obviously totally false.  So, in short, this quote, as a moral axiom or tenant of any ideological framework is actually more worthless than many others I've heard before.

http://freestateproject.org/

Nothing new here, just the same old yapping.

translation: Shit! I asked when you guys were going to "do it", and you actually are right now!!! Abort! Abort!

I guess that's the benefit of not having an concrete ideals or principles behind your 'belief-system', you get to claim whatever you like is inclusive of your belief system or not depending on the time of day, your mood or indigestion or whatever.  Apparently, this is your anarchist Utopia, although the FSP promotes: "... the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."  Meaning that there is a government.  Meaning that it is opposed to what you've said prior.  Hey, if you can't be consistent then how can you expect anyone to discuss anything with you?

Let's read that phrase again, shall we? Let's pay special attention to the wording: "... the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

Hmm.... "maximum". That specifies an upper limit. Is there any word in there that specifies a lower limit? hmm.... I don't see one, but maybe you do? With no lower limit, "No role" is still within the bounds of that statement. There are numerous anarchists in the FSP.

Most certainly a government could be defined into oblivion if the rules and codes of Libertarianism were sufficient, but they have yet to be proven as such, and every attempt to prove them as such has had no headway with someone who isn't an ignoramus or already victim of the ideology.  So, again, if property laws and everything that the FSP project intended to enforce, didn't require enforcement (this "lower limit") then it wouldn't exist - yet, it does exist because the reasons for it's existing are present.  Why this even needs to be said is really blowing my mind.

If there are many anarchists in the FSP then great, I can't keep track of all the various confused sub-ideologies that are occurring within the befuddled and confused milieu of the Libertarian swamp.

My solution, being from the traditional American System, is majority rule with the rights of individuals protected by law.

Care to explain how individual rights are protected when 50.00001% of the population can force their decisions upon the other 49.99999%, including changing this "law"?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

The ultimate joke is that this system has been humming along fairly well for hundreds of years and you, as new to the scene as a new-born puppy, are enraged and claiming, in effect: "how could this system possibly work?!"  Ignoring that it is working every day for you - and fairly well, all things considered.  Perhaps you should take a community college class on Constitutional Law.

I wouldn't say that a system that almost immediately had to put down a violent rebellion as "humming along fairly well", especially considering the current state of that "piece of paper"

LOL, how much you know about the Whiskey Rebellion?  Really, how much?  I've heard of that Libertarian historical fictional yarn woven out there about the Whiskey Rebellion, the Libertarian scribbler was writing as if that that Rebellion was somehow the pinnacle of mankind and as if the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War was fought by a bunch of scoundrels.  Of course, a Libertarian Utopia, otherwise known as 'mob rule' followed.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper in a certain since, it surely is written on a piece of parchment somewhere.  But so is everything written, does that make it any more or less true?  If we had an involved and less moral degenerate citizenry then we could have "the rule of Law".  Imagine that, because that is something much more close to a utopia than anything that you are preaching.

So many fallacies and implicit arguments here that it is a little overwhelming.

*  The fallacy of cynicism:  The fact that they don't pay taxes presently due to the system that they corrupted means what exactly?  That they could never be taxed (ignoring all history to the contrary)?

Any system by which we attempted to tax them would be corrupted. If they've done it once, they'll do it again.

And we can fix it again, our survival literally depends upon it.  

Or..... We can use a different system, instead of trying the same system again, hoping to "get it right this time."

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  --Thomas Jefferson

I'm still waiting for you to propose your system.  Still waiting.

See my proposed system below.

I looked, I didn't see it.  Where is your 'system'?

*  The misconception of taxation:  It appears you are putting forth the tired "tax is theft" argument.

Is it anything else?

Here's my challenge.  Whenever you complain about anything or decry its injustice I want you to frame it in the better context of a new system (that is functional, logical coherent, preferably historic in nature) and argue for that over the existing system.  But not to simply complain about it in a vacuum as if it doesn't exist for any present reason.  
 

'k. Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...

To simply cut to the chase and avoid what I've asked to your deaf ears repeatedly I'll simply personalize the situation to your specific existence.

Q:  Were you ever a baby/child/adolescent?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Nope, I sprung, full-formed, from my mother's womb. Didn't you?

Thanks.  Been waiting for that.  In order for these Liberal/Libertarian doctrines to apply to anyone they surely must have been born as fully adult, fully autonomous individuals.  Without this alone the entire super-structure of Liberalism/Libertarianism crumbles to the ground.

Would you prefer if I said that free people, making decisions, in aggregate, will discover the right solution, and, once that solution is discovered, tend to choose that solution again and again?

I'd also like to point out that this theory is supported by game theory, and historical evidence.

Since you don't refute, or even address this point, I will assume you agree with it.

Of course this hinges on your definition of "free people".  As I see you didn't define that loaded term, but, of course you didn't - because you can't.  Because the Liberal/Libertarian definition of "freedom" and "free people" is incompatible with reality.

Really, you should read those books I cited then you could quit saying things that are so embarrassing.

"crime" is initiation of force, or otherwise violating the NAP (fraud, threat of force, etc). Statue of limitations? Why, simply by getting away with it for some period of time, should they be allowed to get away with it forever? And, of course, the initiator of force is by definition the criminal.

Crime is the definition of the initiation of force, and, initiation of force is criminal.  Well thanks for exposing your circular logic and/or Aristotelian underpinnings to your mind's frameworks.

If robbery is defined as a crime, is it circular reasoning to define a robber as a criminal?

Of course not.  But you are forgetting that you are talking to someone who isn't a Libertarian and therefore doesn't take your assumed definitions at face value.  You have yet to ever prove that "Crime is the initiation of force" (in which there is an implicit fallacy, see if you can find it).  Until then you can't go about simply defining terms as you like and expecting someone who doesn't yet agree to your definitions without sufficient reasoning.  As a definition between like-minded Libertarians then this simply would be definitional (as you say) but as an argument to convince someone of your definitions of terms it clearly is circular.  Seeing as I'm someone who doesn't accept the NAP as being of any worth as an axiom or moral indicator, and seeing that you obviously know that (pursuant to this conversation), then I was taking this as an explanation of your definition - hence, your implied circular logic.

[myrkul]

Now regarding the quote specifically.  Is the intent of saying "ingesting a handful of arsenic" saying that that is tantamount to suicide?  I assume so.  Who is required to follow this doctrine?  Every single person?  If that is the case then you don't have society much less a peaceful one; you would have some type of warlord, ruling council or tribal leader who's power would be near absolute or completely absolute - OR, of course, you'd have the Utopia of your mind's eye that is impossible, if not actually undefinable.  If saying that not following the non-initiation of force is "objectively required" for "continued life" then that is obviously totally false.  So, in short, this quote, as a moral axiom or tenant of any ideological framework is actually more worthless than many others I've heard before.

Let's take this phrase apart, so that we can look at each piece individually, shall we?

"If you wish to have a peaceful society," This sets a goal. The goal being "a peaceful society"

"it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force," This states that to meet that goal, you should refrain from doing the specified action, in this case, "initiate the use of force"

"much in the same way that" This sets up a comparison between the two phrases.

"if you wish to continue life," Again, we're setting a goal. This time, it is continued life.

"it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic." And here, again, we state an action that is detrimental to that goal, and advise that if you wish to meet that goal, you should refrain from doing that action.

Put another way, Ingesting arsenic:continued life::Initiating force:peaceful society

Most certainly a government could be defined into oblivion if the rules and codes of Libertarianism were sufficient, but they have yet to be proven as such, and every attempt to prove them as such has had no headway with someone who isn't an ignoramus or already victim of the ideology.  So, again, if property laws and everything that the FSP project intended to enforce, didn't require enforcement (this "lower limit") then it wouldn't exist - yet, it does exist because the reasons for it's existing are present.  Why this even needs to be said is really blowing my mind.

If there are many anarchists in the FSP then great, I can't keep track of all the various confused sub-ideologies that are occurring within the befuddled and confused milieu of the Libertarian swamp.

So, your argument amounts to, "Government exists, therefore is must always exist."?

LOL, how much you know about the Whiskey Rebellion?  Really, how much?  I've heard of that Libertarian historical fictional yarn woven out there about the Whiskey Rebellion, the Libertarian scribbler was writing as if that that Rebellion was somehow the pinnacle of mankind and as if the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War was fought by a bunch of scoundrels.  Of course, a Libertarian Utopia, otherwise known as 'mob rule' followed.

I know plenty about the whiskey rebellion. I know, for instance, that the US had no sooner cast off the chains of taxation, than they tried to settle them firmly on the backs of their populace.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper in a certain since, it surely is written on a piece of parchment somewhere.  But so is everything written, does that make it any more or less true?  If we had an involved and less moral degenerate citizenry then we could have "the rule of Law".  Imagine that, because that is something much more close to a utopia than anything that you are preaching.

That's essentially what I've been saying. That the real utopian ideologues are the ones that think government is anything but a protection racket.

See my proposed system below.

I looked, I didn't see it.  Where is your 'system'?

You sure? You've been responding to it. It's immediately below this sentence.

Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...

To simply cut to the chase and avoid what I've asked to your deaf ears repeatedly I'll simply personalize the situation to your specific existence.

Q:  Were you ever a baby/child/adolescent?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Nope, I sprung, full-formed, from my mother's womb. Didn't you?

Thanks.  Been waiting for that.  In order for these Liberal/Libertarian doctrines to apply to anyone they surely must have been born as fully adult, fully autonomous individuals.  Without this alone the entire super-structure of Liberalism/Libertarianism crumbles to the ground.

So, the argument here is that because we have parents, and because we grow up, government is necessary? I don't see how that's relevant. Maybe I'm missing something. Could you spell it out in no uncertain terms?

Of course this hinges on your definition of "free people".  As I see you didn't define that loaded term, but, of course you didn't - because you can't.  Because the Liberal/Libertarian definition of "freedom" and "free people" is incompatible with reality.

"Free people" People free from coercion. You must have a different definition of "can't" than I do.

If robbery is defined as a crime, is it circular reasoning to define a robber as a criminal?

Of course not.  But you are forgetting that you are talking to someone who isn't a Libertarian and therefore doesn't take your assumed definitions at face value.  You have yet to ever prove that "Crime is the initiation of force" (in which there is an implicit fallacy, see if you can find it).  Until then you can't go about simply defining terms as you like and expecting someone who doesn't yet agree to your definitions without sufficient reasoning.  As a definition between like-minded Libertarians then this simply would be definitional (as you say) but as an argument to convince someone of your definitions of terms it clearly is circular.  Seeing as I'm someone who doesn't accept the NAP as being of any worth as an axiom or moral indicator, and seeing that you obviously know that (pursuant to this conversation), then I was taking this as an explanation of your definition - hence, your implied circular logic.

Well, you see, if you set forth that the initiation of force is always wrong, then that makes anyone who initiates force always a wrong-doer.

If you think that initiating force is sometimes right, I'd like to hear your criteria.

[niemivh]

Now regarding the quote specifically.  Is the intent of saying "ingesting a handful of arsenic" saying that that is tantamount to suicide?  I assume so.  Who is required to follow this doctrine?  Every single person?  If that is the case then you don't have society much less a peaceful one; you would have some type of warlord, ruling council or tribal leader who's power would be near absolute or completely absolute - OR, of course, you'd have the Utopia of your mind's eye that is impossible, if not actually undefinable.  If saying that not following the non-initiation of force is "objectively required" for "continued life" then that is obviously totally false.  So, in short, this quote, as a moral axiom or tenant of any ideological framework is actually more worthless than many others I've heard before.

Let's take this phrase apart, so that we can look at each piece individually, shall we?

"If you wish to have a peaceful society," This sets a goal. The goal being "a peaceful society"

"it is objectively required to not initiate the use of force," This states that to meet that goal, you should refrain from doing the specified action, in this case, "initiate the use of force"

"much in the same way that" This sets up a comparison between the two phrases.

"if you wish to continue life," Again, we're setting a goal. This time, it is continued life.

"it is objectively required not to ingest a handful of arsenic." And here, again, we state an action that is detrimental to that goal, and advise that if you wish to meet that goal, you should refrain from doing that action.

Put another way, Ingesting arsenic:continued life::Initiating force:peaceful society

This is getting too ridiculous.  If you want my take on the NAP then here it is:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234

Most certainly a government could be defined into oblivion if the rules and codes of Libertarianism were sufficient, but they have yet to be proven as such, and every attempt to prove them as such has had no headway with someone who isn't an ignoramus or already victim of the ideology.  So, again, if property laws and everything that the FSP project intended to enforce, didn't require enforcement (this "lower limit") then it wouldn't exist - yet, it does exist because the reasons for it's existing are present.  Why this even needs to be said is really blowing my mind.

If there are many anarchists in the FSP then great, I can't keep track of all the various confused sub-ideologies that are occurring within the befuddled and confused milieu of the Libertarian swamp.

So, your argument amounts to, "Government exists, therefore is must always exist."?

You must be trolling.  Government exists because it is socially necessary.  Until it is no longer social necessary then it will and should exist.

LOL, how much you know about the Whiskey Rebellion?  Really, how much?  I've heard of that Libertarian historical fictional yarn woven out there about the Whiskey Rebellion, the Libertarian scribbler was writing as if that that Rebellion was somehow the pinnacle of mankind and as if the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War was fought by a bunch of scoundrels.  Of course, a Libertarian Utopia, otherwise known as 'mob rule' followed.

I know plenty about the whiskey rebellion. I know, for instance, that the US had no sooner cast off the chains of taxation, than they tried to settle them firmly on the backs of their populace.

You know plenty about the whiskey rebellion?  I'm doubtful.  Your positions here look like that of an anti-Federalist Confederate.  If you'd like to throw a little more meat on that argument then we might actually go someplace with this, but until then, balls in your court.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper in a certain since, it surely is written on a piece of parchment somewhere.  But so is everything written, does that make it any more or less true?  If we had an involved and less moral degenerate citizenry then we could have "the rule of Law".  Imagine that, because that is something much more close to a utopia than anything that you are preaching.

That's essentially what I've been saying. That the real utopian ideologues are the ones that think government is anything but a protection racket.

The Libertarian ideology has another false ideal in it which is this: that the government has had any historically universal character.  That is another fundamental falsehood in the Liberal/Libertarian doctrine that I'm going to write a whole segment on in my book - that trying to apply a bunch of characteristics to 'government' that are universal is always a lost cause because it has no universal character.  It never has and likely never will.  The general concepts of oligarchy, democracy, autocracy and other actual players on the world stage actually have universal historical characteristics, but the Liberal/Libertarian never wants to discuss actual historical constants - for doing so would give people a real understanding of the world and the ability to see into our immediate future.

See my proposed system below.

I looked, I didn't see it.  Where is your 'system'?

You sure? You've been responding to it. It's immediately below this sentence.

Oh, I thought it was something that wasn't trying to have the conversation go in circles.  Each time 'round simply changing the wording and rhetoric, while the core of the argument stays the same and universal principles are left out in the cold.  Excuse me, but it seems we already had this conversation, and my most cutting questions and views were never answered.  Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234

Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...

To simply cut to the chase and avoid what I've asked to your deaf ears repeatedly I'll simply personalize the situation to your specific existence.

Q:  Were you ever a baby/child/adolescent?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Nope, I sprung, full-formed, from my mother's womb. Didn't you?

Thanks.  Been waiting for that.  In order for these Liberal/Libertarian doctrines to apply to anyone they surely must have been born as fully adult, fully autonomous individuals.  Without this alone the entire super-structure of Liberalism/Libertarianism crumbles to the ground.

So, the argument here is that because we have parents, and because we grow up, government is necessary? I don't see how that's relevant. Maybe I'm missing something. Could you spell it out in no uncertain terms?

There is no reason to pretend like I haven't already answered this to the chirping crickets on this other thread.  I probably wrote about 20+ pages on this topic in this thread that you were very much a part of.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234

Of course this hinges on your definition of "free people".  As I see you didn't define that loaded term, but, of course you didn't - because you can't.  Because the Liberal/Libertarian definition of "freedom" and "free people" is incompatible with reality.

"Free people" People free from coercion. You must have a different definition of "can't" than I do.

I love how Libertarians think that every solution is so simple.  Please rigorously define that term: "people free from coercion"...?  Is that the end-all-be-all of your definition?  If so, then there really is nothing worth discussing any further because you are a completely lost cause and won't ever be able to find your way out of this labyrinth that you've created for yourself.  If so, I'm sorry that that is the case, but there it is, nonetheless.

If robbery is defined as a crime, is it circular reasoning to define a robber as a criminal?

Of course not.  But you are forgetting that you are talking to someone who isn't a Libertarian and therefore doesn't take your assumed definitions at face value.  You have yet to ever prove that "Crime is the initiation of force" (in which there is an implicit fallacy, see if you can find it).  Until then you can't go about simply defining terms as you like and expecting someone who doesn't yet agree to your definitions without sufficient reasoning.  As a definition between like-minded Libertarians then this simply would be definitional (as you say) but as an argument to convince someone of your definitions of terms it clearly is circular.  Seeing as I'm someone who doesn't accept the NAP as being of any worth as an axiom or moral indicator, and seeing that you obviously know that (pursuant to this conversation), then I was taking this as an explanation of your definition - hence, your implied circular logic.

Well, you see, if you set forth that the initiation of force is always wrong, then that makes anyone who initiates force always a wrong-doer.

If you think that initiating force is sometimes right, I'd like to hear your criteria.

Again, you attempt to put our discussion back at the beginning, because you have to; for when we follow the argumentation and ideals of Libertarianism to their logical conclusion, we see nothing but: contradiction, absurdity, confusion, moral depravity, and nonsense.

The loop goes something like this:  Libertarian "Moral" "Axiom" -->  Discussion  -->  Universally proven as worthless/toxic (in all facets) -->  Reword original "Moral" "Axiom" with new rhetoric or hypotheticals -->  Attempt another debunking

Sorry, I'm not going to run in circles.  You can obviously spew much more rhetoric than I can attempt to debunk; that is, if I was falling for the trick in thinking that each type around a little smudge or turn of phrase actually equated to anything new being brought into the discussion.  If you'd like to try and answer some of my refutations that nobody dared to touch (because they were so evident and irrefutable, I presume), in the earlier thread, then we would actually be progressing and not playing this circuital game.

[myrkul]

Put another way, Ingesting arsenic:continued life::Initiating force:peaceful society

This is getting too ridiculous.  If you want my take on the NAP then here it is:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234

More evasion. Can't say I'm surprised. Let me know when you feel like addressing the actual statement above.

So, your argument amounts to, "Government exists, therefore is must always exist."?

You must be trolling.  Government exists because it is socially necessary.  Until it is no longer social necessary then it will and should exist.

In other words, Yes. that is your entire argument.

You know plenty about the whiskey rebellion?  I'm doubtful.  Your positions here look like that of an anti-Federalist Confederate.  If you'd like to throw a little more meat on that argument then we might actually go someplace with this, but until then, balls in your court.

My positions are that of an Anarchist, who sees that immediately after they fought a war to get rid of a tax, they imposed one on their people. If that does not expose government as thieves, I don't know what does.

The Libertarian ideology has another false ideal in it which is this: that the government has had any historically universal character.

Of course government has a historically universal character. All governments throughout time have had one thing in common: Taxation. Taxation is just violent extortion under another name. Thus, all governments, ever, share one common feature: criminality.

Instead of giving people no choice of "Guards for their future security"*, Let each person choose individually who to trust with that duty, and rather than taking the payment for it by force, let each person choose whether or not the price quoted is fair, and to choose another if it is not?

*if you think about it, you may be able to guess why I put that in quotes...

To simply cut to the chase and avoid what I've asked to your deaf ears repeatedly I'll simply personalize the situation to your specific existence.

Q:  Were you ever a baby/child/adolescent?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Nope, I sprung, full-formed, from my mother's womb. Didn't you?

Thanks.  Been waiting for that.  In order for these Liberal/Libertarian doctrines to apply to anyone they surely must have been born as fully adult, fully autonomous individuals.  Without this alone the entire super-structure of Liberalism/Libertarianism crumbles to the ground.

So, the argument here is that because we have parents, and because we grow up, government is necessary? I don't see how that's relevant. Maybe I'm missing something. Could you spell it out in no uncertain terms?

There is no reason to pretend like I haven't already answered this to the chirping crickets on this other thread.  I probably wrote about 20+ pages on this topic in this thread that you were very much a part of.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88184.msg995234#msg995234

Evade, evade, evade. You were trying to make a point, here. Please do, or admit that you are wrong. I will consider silence to be such an admission.

Of course this hinges on your definition of "free people".  As I see you didn't define that loaded term, but, of course you didn't - because you can't.  Because the Liberal/Libertarian definition of "freedom" and "free people" is incompatible with reality.

"Free people" People free from coercion. You must have a different definition of "can't" than I do.

I love how Libertarians think that every solution is so simple.  Please rigorously define that term: "people free from coercion"...?  Is that the end-all-be-all of your definition?  If so, then there really is nothing worth discussing any further because you are a completely lost cause and won't ever be able to find your way out of this labyrinth that you've created for yourself.  If so, I'm sorry that that is the case, but there it is, nonetheless.

Oh, my, but we're in full pedant mode today. Very well.
People: Homo Sapiens. in other words, human beings. No extra-terrestrial life, much less sentient life, has been discovered. Should sentience be discovered in another being than that of the species homo sapiens, the definition of people will, perforce, expand.

free from: without influence by

coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

Now, feel like evading some more? I do so love to watch you dance.

If you think that initiating force is sometimes right, I'd like to hear your criteria.

Sorry, I'm not going to run in circles.

More evasion. Since you clearly feel that initiating force is sometimes right, I want to hear your criteria. When is attacking moral?

[FirstAscent]

myrkul,

I think what niemivh is saying is that you need to start presenting your ideology as something that is built up with facts, statistics, knowledge, historical precedent, real world examples, and in general, an actual demonstration of your ideas in practice.

[myrkul]

myrkul,

I think what niemivh is saying is that you need to start presenting your ideology as something that is built up with facts, statistics, knowledge, historical precedent, real world examples, and in general, an actual demonstration of your ideas in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History

Oh, and if you want to read about Pennsylvania's anarchy (which is mentioned in that wikipedia article, but not detailed), you can see it here: https://www.mises.org/daily/1865