I didn’t see a response to the third string, but at least i HAVE combined two strings into one - -
I agree that "universal application" is not "reduced arbitrariness" in and of itself.
I said that it "contributes" to reduction in arbitrariness and it does that by "providing" a consistent process across society at large.
So really quite very broadly consistent. We're back to consistency.
We’re not back to consistency, we never left it.
Consistency is a major contributor to implementation of the idea of “universal application”.
So major that without consistency, the idea of “universal application” could not be implemented.
I presumed that would be a given for without the one the other could not exist,
but at least now I can see why the objection was raised.
I clarified that consistency “contributes” to non-arbitrariness.
“consistency” contributes by providing the manner which allows non-arbitrariness to be implemented i.e. universal application.
The “Rule of law”(NAP) should be the BASIS for governance (not government, governance).
This is the base premise of the entire topic, so please identify if you disagree.
To implement a non-arbitrary “Rule of law”, such as NAP, in a society-wide manner
implies that a manner of implantation is required that will apply NAP to all of society.
Consistency (universal application) in this context means that NAP is to be applied to all individuals and groups in society.
IF inconsistent application, or arbitrary application, of NAP within society is what you support, please identify that since that is a base premise; otherwise, the need for consistency as a manner of implementing NAP will be considered(by me) as an agreed upon issue.
That is, if there are people or groups in society for which NAP should not be implemented, please identify those individuals or groups which you believe should NOT have NAP applied to them; otherwise, universal application of NAP will be presumed to be an agreed upon issue.
HTTP A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
You say that now, but then why are you still stuck on consistency being the answer to rights protection when you admit it's not good for any other goods and services?
Your statement, “you admit it's not good for any other goods and services”, is false.
( How you came up with that I cannot figure. )
And I am not stuck, you simply did not understand.
Hopefully the above response leads to understanding.
As for services, “consistency” allows for a society-wide implementation of X, Y, and Z
The reason that the central governance portion of minarcism is called “central” is because it applies to all parts of the entire society.
Therefore, all services involved with central governance necessarily require consistent application to all parts of the entire society.
The services NOT required for a healthy society at large would NOT require consistency (universal application) although they “could be consistent” if that’s what the market chose.
That is, whatever society-wide NAP laws are in place (example: no theft)
a process of determining the proper restitution being universally applied across society at large
would contribute to reduction in arbitrariness.
So your organization would not, in fact, steal money from corporations to fund itself (theft) and would not use violence to stop a competing defense organization from forming and offering its services as an alternative?
HOWEVER – A corporation purchasing opportunity does not equate to stealing from the corporation.
Corporations are not natural persons. And society at large(we the people) owns the opportunities to do business in the society; therefore, we the people ( represented through minarcism governance ) could sell those opportunities to corporations (i.e. corporation tax).
If you do not agree that society at large(we the people) owns the opportunities to do business in the society then please identify that since it is a base premise in implementing NAP.
The corporation(NON-natural person) is not required to do business in society so it is not being FORCED to purchase opportunity(by paying tax). And if it chooses not to purchase opportunity, it would starve to death . . . because it is not a natural person. A corporation can lay dormant for centuries and then be active a little while and then go dormant again – strange creatures huh?
If a corporation wants to STEAL the opportunities that belong to the natural persons,
then defensive force against that corporation is completely in keeping with NAP.
Even though groups are not the same creatures as individuals, opportunity for each is of the same nature, in that, with opportunity comes responsibility.
When opportunity is purchased, that opportunity is indivisible from responsibility; otherwise;
immunity could be purchased – and that would lead to arbitrariness in society.
Having numerous differing process for determining proper restitution for society-wide NAP laws
would allow increased opportunity for arbitrariness.
You call arbitrary what I call choices in a free market
What I call arbitrary, I also call choices in a free market, so we agree on that.
that keeps raising the question--why are choices bad for this but not for other goods and services?
Yes, the question is about non-arbitrary. What does THAT mean ?
First, I hope you understand that use of “non-arbitrary” is referencing only those processes/services which are required for a healthy society ( i.e. society-wide NAP laws ).
Beyond that, “non-arbitrary” does not necessarily preclude choice, but rather imposes a requirement to choose.
So the question becomes more like. Why impose a requirement to choose ?
A “choice” implies possibility of not choosing. Not choosing is like leaving a void.
Consistency/ universal application/ non-arbitrary does NOT mean there is no choice involved at all
it means that a choice must be made, that is, that a void cannot exist.
Mother: Here, since you are hungry (stomach is VOID of food) choose broccoli or spinach to eat.
Child: [ runs outside to play without eating ] (leaves a VOID in stomach)
Certain things, like the “Rule of law” cannot be left void and still maintain a healthy society.
KEY POINT: Consistency/ universal application/ non-arbitrary/ required choice – all these mean the same basic thing -- that service XYZ cannot be allowed to become void ( Markets provide no guarantee of a service XYZ remaining available ).
That said, a certain amount of choice can fill areas of governance (RE FedEx/UPS into USPS area, etc) but if the choices part reverts to void(FexEx and UPS cease operations) then minarcism would impose something to fill the void, presuming postal service is necessary for a healthy society – it used to be but with the internet, maybe ensuring the telecommunications market did not become void would suffice – yes, I think the USPS could be shut down now :-0)
This does not rule out private arbitration panels, etc, in the area of “rights protection” but when satisfaction cannot be had in any “choices” that may be created, and since those private panels might not follow the NAP(Rule of law) then there must always be the “Rule of law”(i.e. NAP governance) to which an appeal can be made.
That is, if a private rights protection service fails to apply NAP properly, then the responsibility implied in NAP has not been accepted(or at least acted on), thus there is a void of responsibility.
When Responsibility for Liberty is allowed to become void(i.e. not taking responsibility for a harmful action) then the responsibility must be imposed(minarcism) for the health of the society.
KEY POINT: An implementation of the idea of NAP as a society-wide implementation IS NOT currently (nor has it ever been) provided by the free market.
However, a society-wide implementation of NAP can be provided by “we the people” as implemented in the form of a “NAP constitution” (implements liberty/responsibility without allowing void).
I believe in the free market
I do too, so long as that free market remain within the confines of NAP.
"So long as?" That's redundant. Anything that is imposed is not part of the free
market and therefore not within the confines of the NAP. The free market is defined by the NAP.
You made false claims here so let’s break them apart.
#1 - "So long as?" That's redundant.
It is not redundant as you can be see by drilling into the other false claims.
#2 - Anything that is imposed is not part of the free
market and therefore not within the confines of the NAP.
This falsely equates “the free market” with “the confines of the NAP”.
The black market is certainly within the free market, yet many in the black market do not abide by the confines of the NAP, right ?
The NAP is not self-implementing anymore than the current constitution.
Do you believe the NAP implies Responsibility is part of Liberty ?
If not – that is a base premise for us to navigate.
#3 - The free market is defined by the NAP ?
How so ?The free market can do all sorts of harmful things and not take responsibility for those things.
Using a free market solution for anything provides no guarantee
that the solution is available everywhere in society at large
or that it will remain so.
By that exact same reasoning, we can't trust the free market to provide food or shealter or healthcare so a government needs to.
Using the same (required for healthy society) reasoning for a different type of service
would not be logical.
Again, the distinction is those things which are required for the health of a society at large.
The logic of guarantee to exist (not be void) applies only to those things.
Has the free market ever ceased to provide food, or shelter, or healthcare in parts of the society ?
If and when they do, then we ask –are providing those things, in those places, required for the health of the society ?
And if answered yes, then determination must be made as to implementation - How? How much ? How long ? etc.
The core of an implementation of NAP in society is the Rule of law (addressing the Responsibility side of Liberty).
Has Anarchy ever left a void of the Rule of law in society?
A "Rule of law" whose implementation seeks to reduce arbitrariness is required for a healthy society.
O... M... G... You've stated this, I think, four times just in this one post and many, many times in previous posts. Do you still not understand that THIS IS THE POINT that we disagree on?
. . .
This argumentative fallacy is called "begging the question".
Why should it matter how many times something is stated it as long as it is stated in proper context and the statement has not been refuted(that I knew of) ?
You say THIS IS THE POINT but this statement encompasses MANY POINTS
so where the disagreement specifically lays is not clear by simply disagreeing to this statement.
argumentative fallacy? "begging the question" ?
“begging the question” is a very subjective thing.
Making claims is a primary implementation aspect of any debate.
Many debates will state various claims and then clarifications, questions, and arguments will be put forth on those claims with which there is disagreement. ( This previous statement is a claim itself. And to state this claim is not an argumentative fallacy or any other kind of fallacy. Reality check. )
I made various claims which had been agreed upon (or so I thought) and then made this statement which combined some of those claims together based upon what was logical agreement(or so I thought).
Having made claims which were thought to have been agreed upon and then
stating a logical combination of those claims is NOT an “argumentative fallacy”.
Stating a logical combination IS valid(true) argumentation when based on prior agreed upon claims.
I thought the claims making up the combination had been agreed upon, but apparently not, so we need to determine which of the claims making up the combination are at issue still.
I want to reduce future claims about false manners of debate itself so I hope you understand what I just said.
Again, “begging the question” is a very subjective thing.
If, in fact, there is a question that is raised(begged/etc) in your mind,
then it would be helpful for you to identify exactly what the question is
so that the issue(s) of the question can be verified, clarified, etc.
Let’s try to pull the debate back to the claim(s) you have disagreement with.
Please indicate which of the claims below with which you agree with and those with which you do not agree.
There may be more, but here’s some of the claims I have made (whether directly or indirectly) --
1 - Responsibility is inherent in the NAP.
2 - arbitrariness in governance leads away from health of a society
3 - An “idea” is not the same as ”implementation of the idea”.
4 – NAP is an IDEA, “Rule of law” is an IDEA
5 - "Nap/Rule of law" equates to governance (not necessarily “a government”)
6 - NAP is an idea about a specific type of “Rule of law”(governance)
7 - implementation of NAP society-wide reduces arbitrariness of Rule of law within a society at large
8 - NAP should be implemented society-wide for a healthy society at large.
9 - implementation of NAP society-wide requires a balancing between individuals and groups.
10 – Minarcism(in the meaning as used herein) is a form of implementation of NAP/Rule of law/governance which can implement NAP in a society-wide manner.
These claims above (though there may be more) may logically culminate in the statement --
A "Rule of law"(IDEA = NAP) whose “implementation seeks to reduce arbitrariness”(MINARCISM/IMPLEMENTATION OF IDEA = NAP) is required for a healthy society.
I thought you had agrees to the claims above, but since you disagree with this statement,
let’s identify where disagreement is in the underlying claims before processing a
combination of the claims in a logically concluding statement like this.
My belief is that a society is healthier with a free market in all things.
I think we should either continue with my claims or stop and pursue your claims.
If pursuing your claims, I would start with a few questions of clarification, like . . .
What do you mean by free market ?
Does the free market encompass all members of human(natural person) society ?
Does the free market encompass corporations as well ?
Should NAP be implemented in all of the free market ?
Would NAP be implemented differently between natural persons and corporations ?
That is, would there be balancing required to implement NAP among individuals and corporations ?
This is a sample of questions, as there would likely be more.