Defending the NAP: Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issues

[Hawker]

If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop.  If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration.  If you refuse, I have to kill you. 

That's no way to win friends!

But this is how you want things to work.  I can't win ;(

[myrkul]

But this is how you want things to work.  I can't win ;(

Ahhh... not quite. you still go for the gun a little too fast.

By the way, you still haven't answered this...

I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property of one another?

[Hawker]

But this is how you want things to work.  I can't win ;(

Ahhh... not quite. you still go for the gun a little too fast.

By the way, you still haven't answered this...

I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property of one another?

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

[myrkul]

The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.

Short answer: Yes. Property rights are respected.

[Hawker]

Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.

[myrkul]

Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.

Except for you! Bravo.

See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.

[Hawker]

Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.

Except for you! Bravo.

See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.

FirstAscent will be on my side.  The idea is that you go outside your comfort zone.  So he will be defending the NAP as a way to save the planet.

I can't wait.

[myrkul]

Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.

Except for you! Bravo.

See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.

FirstAscent will be on my side.  The idea is that you go outside your comfort zone.  So he will be defending the NAP as a way to save the planet.

I can't wait.

I'd be willing to present his arguments, If I had a clue as to what they were. Problem is, they're so disjointed, I can't make more than a half-assed attempt at spouting shit like "Edge effects!" and "They'll rape mother earth!"

[FirstAscent]

Second page and not one person has gone outside their comfort zone.

Except for you! Bravo.

See, the problem is, I can't find anything wrong with the system, as presented. We're going to *shudder* need FirstAscent to come make his arguments.

FirstAscent will be on my side.  The idea is that you go outside your comfort zone.  So he will be defending the NAP as a way to save the planet.

I can't wait.

I'd be willing to present his arguments, If I had a clue as to what they were. Problem is, they're so disjointed, I can't make more than a half-assed attempt at spouting shit like "Edge effects!" and "They'll rape mother earth!"

As playing myself:
Which is evidence of your lack of understanding of them and their ramifications.

Now as playing a NAPster:

Edge effects will be addressed in this manner. Coops, coalitions, alliances, whatever you want to call them, will organize, band together, and recognize areas of critical importance, and buy, lease, connive, convince, etc. to gain control of large contiguous plots of land so they may be preserved, thus reducing the damage of edge effects.

These organizations will also relentlessly organize class action lawsuits against every landowner by default, unless you proactively demonstrate that you are operating under respected guidelines with regard to pollution output.

[FirstAscent]

As playing a NAPster

I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.

By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.

Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.

It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.

[Hawker]

As playing a NAPster

I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.

By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.

Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.

It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.

OK I don't understand a word of that.

Go back to yourself and and a 1 point post with an example where a NAP based society can't secure its environment.

[FirstAscent]

As playing myself

Try to be smart and apply your knowledge in such a way that you can really defend your ideals within the structure of a system that you are against. It does no good to parrot your adversary. I will likely address the oceans next, but it will be tough, as I believe Hawker stated that the oceans are privately held.

[FirstAscent]

As playing a NAPster

I recognize that in my NAP-land, there will still be ignorant people who can't recognize the true value of their own holdings. With respect to ranchers, their own interest will encourage them to kill any and all wolves. In fact, they will create coops, coalitions and alliances which are devoted to educate and encourage the death of wolves. As property owners, they will erect fences to keep the wolves out.

By the same token, there will be organizations vehemently fighting against the notion of fences in critical areas, as they disrupt the necessary flow of wildlife, which is required for migration, sustainability, ecosystem health, habitat relocation due to climate change, etc. These organizations fully recognize that fences are destructive, and will ultimately lead to a crisis in long term health of our Earth.

Fences must go, they will say, and they will be right. How will they address it? By class action lawsuits, education, and presentation to ranchers on how they can function without fences. There's an old saying: "fences make good neighbors". In the case of rural land though, fences make for bad ecosystem management.

It will be shown that things which don't remain static on land are in fact not the property of land owner. This applies to all animals, water, and even trees, as they were seeded by either animals, insects or the wind. Even soil, which erodes via wind and water will be called into question.

OK I don't understand a word of that.

Go back to yourself and and a 1 point post with an example where a NAP based society can't secure its environment.

Ask me more precisely what you don't understand.

[Hawker]

Its a bit pointless.  It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones.  I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.

[FirstAscent]

Its a bit pointless.  It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones.  I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.

I still don't understand. Are you saying my points are pointless, or this exercise in reversing positions is pointless? Regarding comfort zones, are you saying the true NAPsters (not myself) are the ones not getting outside their comfort zones, or I'm not getting outside my comfort zone? And I'm still waiting for what part of my post doesn't make sense.

[Hawker]

Its a bit pointless.  It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones.  I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.

I still don't understand. Are you saying my points are pointless, or this exercise in reversing positions is pointless? Regarding comfort zones, are you saying the true NAPsters (not myself) are the ones not getting outside their comfort zones, or I'm not getting outside my comfort zone? And I'm still waiting for what part of my post doesn't make sense.

I'm saying we have to ask and answer the questions ourselves.  So lets wait for an objection that makes sense

[FirstAscent]

Its a bit pointless.  It seems that people who believe in the NAP can't get outside their comfort zones.  I'll wait for an objection that makes sense to me.

I still don't understand. Are you saying my points are pointless, or this exercise in reversing positions is pointless? Regarding comfort zones, are you saying the true NAPsters (not myself) are the ones not getting outside their comfort zones, or I'm not getting outside my comfort zone? And I'm still waiting for what part of my post doesn't make sense.

I'm saying we have to ask and answer the questions ourselves.  So lets wait for an objection that makes sense

Good luck waiting for an objection.

[fergalish]

OK. Myrkul pointed me to this thread which I had missed.  Since no NAPsters seems willing to debate anti-NAP, I'll try to raise a couple of objections to this anarchic NAPesque society.

@hawker.

Suppose we are neighbors.  You are a small scale farmer and I wish to build a truckload of houses on my property.  To do so I need to dig a well into the water table.  You're a clever man so you realize this will cause problems for you 5 or 10 years into the future.  My property is mine, so you cannot prevent me from doing the building.  However there will eventually be a cost to you, so you must take action.  The arbitrators cannot make a rational decision, in the sense that two a-priori equally neutral arbitrators might choose differently depending on their opinions of buildings, water tables, environmental destruction etc.

Therefore, your anarchic society, in this case, will fail to defend the rights of its peaceable members and will fail to resolve the conflict between them.  Violence will ensue.