Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system! To begin posting Login or Sign Up.
August 27, 2014, 05:05:32 AM
Search:     Advanced search
189436 Posts in 10014 Topics by 18070 Members
Latest Member: allicewhan
Home Help Search Login Register
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST  (Read 3479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile

THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
 
What is the guiding principle of governance ?
Minarchist : NAP
Anarchist : NAP
 
Who is the final arbiter of what constitutes harm (offensive force)
and what remedy is available when harm has been inflicted ?
( punishment / restitution / other defensive force )
 
Minarchist: Legislature ( elected representatives )
Anarchist : ???
 
 
Who is the final arbiter of determining how much harm has been caused and
what the remedy should be ?
 
Minarchist: Judiciary ( jury )
Anarchist : ???
 
If remedy toward the injured party is not consented to voluntarily,
who should extract ( defensive force ) the remedy ?
 
Minarchist: Executive ( elected benevolent grim reaper )
Anarchist : ???

Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2014, 12:02:04 PM »

Who is the final arbiter of what constitutes harm (offensive force)
and what remedy is available when harm has been inflicted ?
( punishment / restitution / other defensive force )

There is no final arbiter. I know that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. That's why people concoct ways to assign someone to be that but that's mostly an illusion of security. I think the motivations are similar to religious people making up answers to the things they don't know. If you can convince yourself it's meaningful and less arbitrary, it appears to be comforting. I don't guess most people will be ready to accept that truth until sometime after most people have let go of religion and finally see that states are an extension of that same mindset.

What people call final arbiters in a minarchy are just people who have been assigned that role in some fashion with some degree of arbitrariness or another, and then if anyone dares to not accept the decision, they use violence to give them a tune-up, so to speak--to make an example of them and hopefully it helps maintain the comforting illusion that so many people are relying on to make them feel less uneasy about the fact that there is no final arbiter.

Most anarchists I know seem to be fans of restitution. Punishment doesn't appear to be very effective as a preventative. Prisons just seem to make people into career criminals and do nothing to make a victim whole. That's just my opinion though.

The idea of the NAP is just that it seems like a good way to avoid violent conflict. If people cannot find a peaceful means of resolving their disputes, then violence seems inevitable. If an individual wants to avoid violence, the NAP seems like a good way. It seems to me that if we can convince more people to respect the NAP, we'll have more peaceful societies. Generally teaching by example seems like an effective way.

I don't think there's a nice clear line between a minarchy and some theoretical anarchist society. Anarchism is, by definition, not collectivist. So in that sense, a society can't really be anarchist. Only an individual can be an anarchist. My theory is, the more people who respect the NAP (are anarchists), the smaller governments will be. It's not a sudden switch. It's an evolution.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 12:04:15 PM by Dalebert »
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2014, 12:58:58 PM »

Thank you for your reply. Requesting follow up if you feel it worthy.


RE: “There is no final arbiter.”

So how does a person(and community) know if another person has been harmed and should be recompensed ?

And who is to say what recompense is just(moral) if no one can know the extent of harm ?



RE: “I know that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.”

Comfort is subjective. I seek what is required for a healthy society for all people to prosper(reach higher human potential).

No man(or woman) can be an island unto themselves since, by virtue of being human, something is owed(morally) to humanity(community at some level), unless one rejects life, that is accepting that life is void of any value.

Each was born into a community who helped to attend to needs, at least for a time.
Even if that community consists of a small family, something is owed(morally) to that community.

Community health requires, at least, a rule of law and fair and consistent way to implement the rule of law.

NAP being a good rule of law, a community still requires a fair and consistent way to implement it. For a tiny community perhaps a person’s word and personal retribution when one’s word is broken is sufficient, but the society of the continents, save one, are clearly not small enough for that to be a satisfactory implementation.
  



RE:  “I don't guess most people will be ready to accept that truth until sometime after most people have let go of religion and finally see that states are an extension of that same mindset.”

What truth? Are you claiming “anarchy is the best form of governance ” as truth ?



RE: “What people call final arbiters in a minarchy are just people who have been assigned that role in some fashion with some degree of arbitrariness or another”

Agreed, but selecting oneself or selecting “nobody” is some degree or arbitrariness as well.
I believe that selecting one form of arbitrariness over another form of arbitrariness should be based on what better provides for the health of a community.
 
A rule of law with a restricting constitution by and for a society, among other things, can help alleviate some degree of arbitrariness in governance.



RE: “The idea of the NAP is just that it seems like a good way to avoid violent conflict.”

Agreed, but how the NAP(form of governance) gets implemented can aid as well.



RE: “If people cannot find a peaceful means of resolving their disputes, then violence seems inevitable.”

This seems like an argument for providing peaceful means, even if those peaceful means are encouraged by threat of violence in the face of “actual violence” that a person may contemplate engaging in.

And these means are obviously in play regardless of Anarchism or Minarchism, just being a matter of which arbitrary form is implemented.



RE:  “If an individual wants to avoid violence, the NAP seems like a good way.”

Agreed, but, technically,the NAP is not really a “way”(manner of implementation of a philosophy) rather the NAP is a core “idea” (philosophy) which, like all ideas, need implementation to be of value and the manner of implementation can affect the reach of the value.



RE: "My theory is, the more people who respect the NAP (are anarchists), the smaller governments will be."


My theory is, the more people who respect the NAP (regardless of anarchist or minarchist), the smaller government will be. So we both have an extremely similar theory.

 :-0)


« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 01:11:46 PM by ReasonableVoice »
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2014, 02:33:07 PM »

So how does a person(and community) know if another person has been harmed and should be recompensed ?...
And who is to say what recompense is just(moral) if no one can know the extent of harm ?...
Comfort is subjective. I seek what is required for a healthy society for all people to prosper(reach higher human potential).

That's all subjective.

Quote
No man(or woman) can be an island unto themselves since, by virtue of being human, something is owed(morally) to humanity(community at some level), unless one rejects life, that is accepting that life is void of any value.

Morality is subjective too, but I'm inclined to agree and the basis for that is the NAP. I feel I owe it to others to respect their rights and freedoms and I feel they should do the same for me. If someone is charitable to me above and beyond that, I'm inclined to be grateful and pass it forward.

Quote
Community health requires, at least, a rule of law and fair and consistent way to implement the rule of law.

Most people would probably agree with that but people will forever be debating what is fair and consistent. If you feel strongly enough about some rules and laws that you feel community health requires, I guess you can justify to yourself the use of violence to impose them on people who disagree with the particular details.

Quote
NAP being a good rule of law, a community still requires a fair and consistent way to implement it. For a tiny community perhaps a person’s word and personal retribution when one’s word is broken is sufficient, but the society of the continents, save one, are clearly not small enough for that to be a satisfactory implementation.

Alright. You're stating your opinion. I can't really argue what your opinion is.

Quote
What truth? Are you claiming “anarchy is the best form of governance ” as truth ?

What did I say that sounded like that? I'm pretty sure I said anarchy was, by nature, a personal POV and had nothing to do with governance. I tend to see governance as a group of people, many of them with good intentions but not all, trying to figure out some way to decide when they agree enough with someone else about when violence is justified to actually personally contribute to making that violence happen. Whether the violence they advocate is actually justified or not is an endless debate.




RE: “What people call final arbiters in a minarchy are just people who have been assigned that role in some fashion with some degree of arbitrariness or another”

Quote
Agreed, but selecting oneself or selecting “nobody” is some degree or arbitrariness as well.

It's not a selection. I will always be responsible for my decisions. Every decision I make will have repercussions. If I support the Nazi's, I've had a hand in any murders they do in their name of justice. If I oppose them, I might save some people. I might get killed myself. That's reality. There's nothing arbitrary about reality.

A less extreme example--if my local neighborhood wants to form a watch, I might agree to contribute depending on how reasonable it is. "We'd like each member to spend eight hours a week walking around the neighborhood with a sidearm and keeping an eye on things. We'd also like each member to contribute $25 a years for supplies." Maybe I'd support it. If they demanded time and money from everyone and said they were going to punish people who didn't agree so there wouldn't be free riders, I'd probably not support it because that seems like a clear violation of the NAP to me. But then, they're probably going to threaten me and make me support it anyway and I'll probably hand over some money so they won't shoot me. Each individual has to decide what to do. There will be repercussions either regardless. Now just scale that up to something larger and throw in whatever details you want to elaborate on and I'll tell you how I feel about whether it's moral.

Quote
I believe that selecting one form of arbitrariness over another form of arbitrariness should be based on what better provides for the health of a community.
A rule of law with a restricting constitution by and for a society, among other things, can help alleviate some degree of arbitrariness in governance.

Okay. So I suppose that would be the basis of your moral decisions rather than the NAP.

Quote
RE: “The idea of the NAP is just that it seems like a good way to avoid violent conflict.”

Agreed, but how the NAP(form of governance) gets implemented can aid as well.

I don't think you do agree, but you're welcome to a different opinion. The NAP is a principle. That's what the P is. It's not a form of governance. The question for me is how I will decide whether an organization is behaving morally. The degree to which I will support an organization will depend on the degree to which that organization demonstrates respect for that principle.

Quote
RE: “If people cannot find a peaceful means of resolving their disputes, then violence seems inevitable.”

This seems like an argument for providing peaceful means, even if those peaceful means are encouraged by threat of violence in the face of “actual violence” that a person may contemplate engaging in.

It's not. I suspect, based on your language, that we probably disagree on the extent to which power should be consolidated for this purpose. I think there could be lots of arbitrators that compete like any other business and that entities in conflict have lots of incentives imposed by reality to contractually agree to the decisions of one. Or you could look at it as disincentives for violence. Consolidation of power, the power of taxation, and things like that tend to remove many of those disincentives for violence, IMHO. But that's just my opinion. You have already expressed disagreement.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2014, 04:08:27 PM »

#1 How does a person(and community) know if another person has been harmed and should be recompensed ?

#2 Who is to say what recompense is just(moral) if no one can know the extent of harm ?



RE: That's all subjective.

Response:

If there are no answers to these two questions, I won’t persist, but questions are not subjective. Some answers may be subjective, but these questions are not.


====================================================

Prior Quote
Community health requires, at least, a rule of law and fair and consistent way to implement the rule of law.

RE: Most people would probably agree with that but people will forever be debating what is fair and consistent.

Response: Yes, human history shows you to be correct, though some periods with good governance are much more conducive to elevating humanity.

====================================================

RE: If you feel strongly enough about some rules and laws that you feel community health requires, I guess you can justify to yourself the use of violence to impose them on people who disagree with the particular details.

Response: It would be a community justifying a “rule of law” as needful for the health of the community, not a sole individual justifying, granting that the community is made up of individuals.

Did you agree there is something owed community ?

Certainly shedding unwanted growths, which usually spring up from what was a good beginning, could be effected through the act of the community – this is being accomplished today through non-compliance by many (and that is growing).

====================================================

Prior Quote
NAP being a good rule of law, a community still requires a fair and consistent way to implement it. For a tiny community perhaps a person’s word and personal retribution when one’s word is broken is sufficient, but the society of the continents, save one, are clearly not small enough for that to be a satisfactory implementation.

RE: Alright. You're stating your opinion. I can't really argue what your opinion is.

Response:  Just asking . . . . Is it your opinion that a community does not require a fair and consistent way to implement NAP ?


====================================================


CONCERNING YOUR WORDS:
“I don't guess most people will be ready to accept that truth until sometime after most people have let go of religion and finally see that states are an extension of that same mindset.”

Prior Quote
What truth? Are you claiming “anarchy is the best form of governance ” as truth ?

RE: What did I say that sounded like that? I'm pretty sure I said anarchy was, by nature, a personal POV and had nothing to do with governance . . . I tend to see governance as a group of people . . .

Response:  You used the words “that truth” and my questions were an attempt to determine what you meant by “that truth”.

As for governance, governance of a single person is still governance. I accept you may disagree with that. It is my understanding that anarchy rejects governance by groups and allow governance to be by each individual.
GovernMENT implying a group of people engaged in governance.
GovernANCE  simply being an activity.

====================================================

REGARDING: “What people call final arbiters in a minarchy are just people who have been assigned that role in some fashion with some degree of arbitrariness or another”

Prior Quote
Agreed, but selecting oneself or selecting “nobody” is some degree or arbitrariness as well.

RE: It's not a selection. I will always be responsible for my decisions.


Response:
There a line that goes . . . If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

You can select anarchy by withdrawal from all forms of group governance.

You may not call that a selection, but I fail to see how it is not.

====================================================

Prior Quote
I believe that selecting one form of arbitrariness over another form of arbitrariness should be based on what better provides for the health of a community.
A rule of law with a restricting constitution by and for a society, among other things, can help alleviate some degree of arbitrariness in governance.


RE: Okay. So I suppose that would be the basis of your moral decisions rather than the NAP.


Response:
No. As long as the NAP is not violated, it is still the underlying basis.
Example: I don’t presuppose such a constitution to bring harm to people who do no harm to other people, though it would define what constitutes harm and that is an area which would need great scrutiny for any constitution.


====================================================

CONCERNING: “The idea of the NAP is just that it seems like a good way to avoid violent conflict.”

Prior Quote
Agreed, but how the NAP(form of governance) gets implemented can aid as well.

RE: I don't think you do agree, but you're welcome to a different opinion.

Response:
 I don’t know how you arrive at that thinking when everything I say is in keeping with the NAP. I think you may be viewing Minarchism as necessarily violative of the NAP when it’s not.

====================================================

RE: The NAP is a principle. That's what the P is. It's not a form of governance.

Response: Agreed. NAP is a philosophy as I stated earlier.
PHILOSOPHY, IDEA, PRINCIPLE, these are all terms to describe the same basic entity called NAP.

Anarchism and Minarchism are forms of governance which can implement NAP(PRINCIPLE/IDEA/PHILOSOPHY)


====================================================

REGARDING: “If people cannot find a peaceful means of resolving their disputes, then violence seems inevitable.”

Prior Quote
This seems like an argument for providing peaceful means, even if those peaceful means are encouraged by threat of violence in the face of “actual violence” that a person may contemplate engaging in.

RE:  It's not. I suspect, based on your language, that we probably disagree on the extent to which power should be consolidated for this purpose.

Response:  NAP allows for defensive force.
A threat of force(proactive defense) for someone who is contemplating aggression(offensive force) is wholly within the NonAggression Principle.

That said, a threat of force(proactive defense) for someone who is NOT contemplating aggression(offensive force)  is NOT within the NonAggression Principle.


====================================================

RE: I think there could be lots of arbitrators that compete

Response:  I agree, but those arbitrators should all be subject to the “Rule of law” of the community.

Community Common Law courts used to do just this very thing.


====================================================

Thank you.
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2014, 05:46:34 PM »

In looking back, this statement of mine may not be clear . . .


"That said, a threat of force(proactive defense) for someone who is NOT contemplating aggression(offensive force)  is NOT within the NonAggression Principle."


As an example, personal use of marijuana does not harm others; hence, there should be no threat concerning person use of marijuana.


A person who personally uses marijuana and then harms someone by some act,
it is STILL NOT the "personal use of marijuana" that does harm, it is the "some act".

If the "some act" is a frequent occurrence in society,
then a proactive threat of harm for the "some act" might be put into place for that, but NOT for the "personal use of marijuana".

I don't advocate use of marijuana, this was just an example of what should NOT have a threat imposed on it.
 
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2014, 09:33:36 AM »

I read the last post but not the wall of text one. That's already getting too long for such a tedious subject to begin with. I found the anarchy/minarchy debate tedious long ago. I engaged in it full throttle for a while. It's one of those ongoing and endless battles over the 1% of disagreement between libertarians that doesn't seem to have much hope of impacting the freedom movement in any way.

What bugs me about the questions is not that you hold a certain position that differs from mine, i.e. you're a minarchist. It's that you're using dishonest language such as "an implementation of the NAP" when you're just talking about an implementation of defense services that requires it to be imposed on everyone. So just make your thread about why you feel it's necessary for defense services to be like that to be successful. So far you've stated that's what you believe. Yes, people know that. It's the standard minarchist position. If they're based on the principle of the NAP, then participation in it will not be mandatory. If they're based on full participation of the community whether everyone approves of the organization or not and they use force as necessary to make everyone support the organization such as through taxation or conscription, then it's based on another principle--maybe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Call it what you want. Oh! Maybe the MAP--Minimum Aggression Principle. "Only we can use aggression because it's absolutely necessary to make sure everyone else doesn't."

Some other NAPsters might pile on me for saying this, but there's no absolute right or wrong, no absolute morality, so it's not "wrong". I just disagree that it's absolutely necessary or even better than an organization based on the NAP.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2014, 08:40:17 PM »

RE: “the 1% of disagreement between libertarians that doesn't seem to have much hope of impacting the freedom movement in any way.”

I agree with that, and I hope people don’t sense otherwise by this inquiry.
I’m just looking to gain an understanding of how anarchy would work
since that would seem to mean a community with no common definition of what the “Rule of law” would be.


===========================================================

RE:  What bugs me . . . you're using dishonest language such as "an implementation of the NAP"
I don’t understand what dishonesty you refer to.

Anarchy can implement the NAP at an individual level
Minarch can implement NAP at the community level

I fail to see exactly is dishonest. Can you point to something specific ?

===========================================================


RE:  when you're just talking about an implementation of defense services that requires it to be imposed on everyone


I don’t believe I talked about this (maybe you mean this as a presupposed generalization though)
Either way, I don’t believe this to be the case.
Unless there is mandatory draft (or mandated individual tax to pay for it), then there is no required imposition on everyone.
I do not see Minarchism as having either of these mandatory things.
Defense can be voluntary enlistment(employment) and funds can be raised by corporation tariffs.

===========================================================
 
RE:  So just make your thread about why you feel it's necessary for defense services to be like that to be successful. So far you've stated that's what you believe.


Where did I states that’s what I believe ? Since I don’t believe it, I would be surprised to see I stated it anywhere.


===========================================================

RE:  Call it what you want. Oh! Maybe the MAP--Minimum Aggression Principle. "Only we can use aggression because it's absolutely necessary to make sure everyone else doesn't."

You lost me. WHERE do you see mention of any AGGRESSION by
NAP implemented under Minarchism as I have laid out ?
Defensive force is not Aggression(offensive force).
Defensive force used to collect taxes from corporations is not aggression.
Taxes on corporations are not required as the corporation do not have to do business here.
But if the choose to do business here and fail to pay the corporate excise tax that is
THEFT (aggression) and, again, use of defensive force to collect that tax (restitution of theft) is NOT AGGRESSION(offensive force).

===========================================================

RE: Some other NAPsters might pile on me for saying this, but there's no absolute right or wrong, no absolute morality, so it's not "wrong". I just disagree that it's absolutely necessary or even better than an organization based on the NAP.


If did not figure out what you meant by “it” in your “it’s absolutely necessary” phrase here.

But . . . absolute right or wrong is implied by adherence to the NAP. Those who consent to the NAP as good(moral judgment) are implying it is absolutely moral to refrain from harming others.


===========================================================

End
Logged

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6533
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2014, 08:59:19 PM »

You lost me. WHERE do you see mention of any AGGRESSION by
NAP implemented under Minarchism as I have laid out ?
Defensive force is not Aggression(offensive force).
Defensive force used to collect taxes from corporations is not aggression.
Taxes on corporations are not required as the corporation do not have to do business here.
But if the choose to do business here and fail to pay the corporate excise tax that is
THEFT (aggression) and, again, use of defensive force to collect that tax (restitution of theft) is NOT AGGRESSION(offensive force).

So you just redefine theft to mean someone not paying you money you think they should have to pay you for some reason. I don't recognize your right to demand money from someone under threat of violence so that falls under my definition of aggression. I feel pretty silly having to explain that. We're really far apart in just basic definitions of words like theft and aggression. This conversation is getting painfully tedious. I think I'm done, but maybe someone else will be bored enough to continue the conversation.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2014, 09:50:53 PM »

You lost me. WHERE do you see mention of any AGGRESSION by
NAP implemented under Minarchism as I have laid out ?
Defensive force is not Aggression(offensive force).
Defensive force used to collect taxes from corporations is not aggression.
Taxes on corporations are not required as the corporation do not have to do business here.
But if the choose to do business here and fail to pay the corporate excise tax that is
THEFT (aggression) and, again, use of defensive force to collect that tax (restitution of theft) is NOT AGGRESSION(offensive force).

So you just redefine theft to mean someone not paying you money you think they should have to pay you for some reason. I don't recognize your right to demand money from someone under threat of violence so that falls under my definition of aggression. I feel pretty silly having to explain that. We're really far apart in just basic definitions of words like theft and aggression. This conversation is getting painfully tedious. I think I'm done, but maybe someone else will be bored enough to continue the conversation.

Our basic definitions of aggression and theft are likely identical.
It is your use of "someone" that would differ from my view of a "someone" in the context you applied it.

A corporation is NOT a "someone" under a constitution which implements NAP.

Tedious indicates deep study as there is truth in the saying "the devil is in the details".

This is a euphemistic phrase, not literal, nor directed at you personally.

Anyway, thanks.
Logged

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2014, 10:41:31 PM »

Mark once said that he's not against government, just the concept of the state. For me, that was profound and helped bridge the gap I have between voluntarism and minarchy. I think that a truly vonluntaristic society either cannot last or wont be realized in the first place.

It'll either fail, because somewhere there's going to be organized despots who will come in and take over.

Or, it won't come to pass because you'll need 100% of all people all the time, from it's creation to eternity, to strictly adhere to the NAP.

I like the idea of a voluntary government. More akin to a home owners association, than a state with the monopoly on coercive force. Where I can voluntarily move into a location and agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the area and help to contribute to the location through taxes. It may sound like the current model, but the difference is that I read the TOS before hand, and agreed by contact. Perhaps in some areas, I can pull my property out of system and that may actually be a form of punishment...exclusion and exclusion from the benefits and services of the organization.

I think ultimately, human beings need some kind of association and organization to reach their potential and achieve their goals.
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2014, 10:15:47 AM »

RE: "More akin to a home owners association, than a state with the monopoly on coercive force."


A monopoly on coercive force isn't necessarily the problem,
it is when a monopoly of force uses that force in AGGRESSION.

Defensive coercive force used by a monopolized force could be considered is a good thing under the NAP.
The key being that there should be a competing force (Second Amendment) large enough to keep the monopoly in check.


As for Home owner association, that is the way the States are set up now.
You can choose between them.
The problem is there are not enough choices.

I believe the constitution (to be better suited period, regardless of NAP) should limit the size of the "area of representation"(State size) in order for the central governance portion to remain better in check - bring the central portion to near gridlock is good.
The size of a county or parrish should make up the areas with representation in both the Senate and the House, each county in essence becoming a State.

It would be a United States with about 3,000 stars on the flag  :-0)

So both Houses of Congress would be FAR MORE POPULACE than they are today.
The more people trying to agree to a majority, the less likely unless it is really something the people in the whole desire.
Bill of rights still in place which cannot be overridden by even a 2/3 majority.

Global evil doers would find it much harder to coerce 6,000 Senators and 30,000 House members who would have closer ties to the people.
Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2014, 05:09:56 PM »

Cripes this all looks familiar. Oddly enough a large mob is almost easier to manipulate then a small one in my experience. My Dad used to call it brain division. From several cases in the FSP I have heard about, snubbing bad dealers works pretty well. People either straighten up and fly right or leave.

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2014, 05:11:35 PM »

And we prefere the term Napster Miz Voice.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 12:43:56 PM by alaric89 »
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2014, 06:01:11 PM »

a large mob is almost easier to manipulate then a small one in my experience.

Regardless of whether or not a larger number of elected positions could help reduce "outside" influence, the large number allows more AREAS of autonomous/sovereign* governance

so that more choices of societal designs are available to choose from.


( *sovereign in those things which the central portion is not granted power )


Napster? we?

Anarchists can be NAP adherents
Minarchist can be NAP adherents

To get a majority "we" out of all those in that superset to agree to "Napster", well, good luck :-0)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
 

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 18 queries.

Free Talk Live Image
Free Talk Live Image
Free Talk Live Image
Be your own bank
Free Talk Live Image
Free Talk Live Image
Watch the Ridley Report
Free Talk Live Image
Liberty Stickers
Mark Warden - New Hampshire Realtor
Math Gate
Free Talk Live Image
Midas Resources
Amazon
Buzzbox Coffee
freedomcam.net
Quantum Vibe from Bighead Press
DoorDevil.com
Free Talk Live Image
Free State Project
Free Talk Live Image
Advertise Market Promote with AMP
Free Keene - NH Liberty Activism
shiny badges
Join the Shire Society
Freedom's Phoenix
iHeartRadio
stitcher smartradio
talk stream live
FTL on AudioNow
bitcoin not bombs
Liberty on the Rocks