Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is the NAP Necessary?
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is the NAP Necessary?  (Read 26098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #105 on: May 19, 2009, 08:18:19 AM »

I'm not a social contract kind of guy, though it's an interesting concept.  In reality it means nothing.

That said, Mises was a minarchist :)
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #106 on: May 19, 2009, 09:40:25 AM »

I'm not a social contract kind of guy, though it's an interesting concept.  In reality it means nothing.

That said, Mises was a minarchist :)

True, but he didn't pretend that government was somehow voluntary, based on some sort of contractual agreement.

Libertarian Papers should be publishing an article of mine soon about minarchy, and I make the point that some minarchists, those who think that government is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good, would think that guys like you had conceded too much ground to anarchists, because you have basically agreed with the anarchists that it government is evil, but not that it is unnecessary. People like Rand, or Tibor Machan, on the other hand would say that government is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good (in fcat, Rand would probably object at being told that something evil is necessary).

I suppose that means we can categorise people as those that think that government is necessary and not evil (Rand), those who think it is a necessary evil (the phrase comes from Paine), those who think it is an unnecessary good (can't think of an example), and those who think it is an unnecessary evil (most anarchists).
Logged

MacFall

  • Agorist
  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2295
  • No king but Christ; no law but liberty!
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #107 on: May 19, 2009, 10:07:08 AM »

I'm not a social contract kind of guy, though it's an interesting concept.  In reality it means nothing.

That said, Mises was a minarchist :)

That's not exactly true. He believed that some level of government was inevitable, but he also believed in the unlimited right of secession, including at the individual level. Jörg Guido Hülsmann (Mises' biographer) has said that Mises thought government should be run entirely at the neighborhood level, with the form and power structure constantly changing. Which it must do, with the constant threat of secession if they should make those in their jurisdiction unhappy.

That's not really minarchy, as there can be no archos when the people have the unquestioned right to secede.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 10:08:50 AM by MacFall »
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

Alex Free Market

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #108 on: May 19, 2009, 12:47:31 PM »

Skimming this thread, while quite fascinating, is also quite disheartening.

It is sad to see people so wrapped up in the peddling of polycentric law bullshit, and those who oppose it, that it loses sight of the FAR MORE IMPORTANT issue.  That being, ethics and morality.


I used to be (and am still), an advocate and believer in the polycentric law model, but to see what is going on here, with the petty bickering over things which really are of no moral consequence at all, is sad.  The thread has simply devolved int utilitarian bickering.   The only people who can find any "meaning" in such conversations are self-admitted utilitarians or latent-utilitarians. 

When I see this kind of thing, I know the useful portion of the conversation has pretty much come to an end, and one or more parties should just end it right there... because the moral argument has simply ended at this point, and when that happens, I think the conversation need to be over, as it has devolved into an empty shell of a debate.



What happens when people of differing systems of belief (or different competing agencies) come into conflict?

If you think that kind of conflict is a "bad" thing, in a deontological sense, then I suggest whomever believes that needs to completely reevalute their entire understanding and belief in ethics and morality, because only a strict-pacifist or nihilist has any business asking that kind of question.

Competing systems of belief have existed since time immemorial, and that shall continue to be an objective fact until the end of time, and these conflicts exist throughout the universe.  There is nothing you can do about ending this conflict, nor is their anything inherently wrong with that fact to anyone other than a nihilist. 

Polycentric law is designed to minimize these conflicts, not eliminate them entirely.   Entirely eliminating conflict between competing systems of beliefs is a mathematical impossiblity.

If this means people will fight.  So be it.   If this means people will die.  So be it.  It is not a bad thing, and if you think death or harm and fighting over what you believe is morally right is a "bad thing," such people need to reject morality entirely, and go jump on the nihilist choo-choo train. 

Addendum - just going to add in a postscript comment.  Whether the phrase, "bad thing," in this last paragraph was the best choice or words, I don't know... it might have been best to simply say that conflict is inevitable when people disagree on ethical fundamentals (first principles,etc...).  Obviously fighting is [arguably] bad in the sense that few people actually want to fight or be killed, but I meant it is not a bad thing in the context of defending what you feel is right should not be considered a bad thing, else the whole point of ethics and morality becomes a moot point.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2009, 12:06:01 AM by Alex Free Market »
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #109 on: May 19, 2009, 01:02:42 PM »

Skimming this thread, while quite fascinating, is also quite disheartening.

It is sad to see people so wrapped up in the peddling of polycentric law bullshit, and those who oppose it, that it loses sight of the FAR MORE IMPORTANT issue.  That being, ethics and morality.

You are correct - the fundamental issue is that states are inherently unjust. They prevent people doing what they themselves do. What rights are violated when a private enforcer punishes a rights violation, or enforces a right, that are not also violated when the state punishes rights violations or protects rights? If the answer is "none," then preventing competition with the state is preventing people doing things that violate the rights of nobody.
Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #110 on: May 21, 2009, 08:13:51 PM »

Social contract theory has been debunked roundly by Spooner, Tucker, Mises, Rothbard, and many others. It's as silly a theory as the geocentric model of the solar system. But I'll boil down the argument for you:

A contract is a form of consent. There can be no such thing as a contract without the knowledge and consent of the contractor. You do not consent to anything by being born. There is no agreement between a person and the government, except that the person shall obey the government and respect their monopoly on legal violence, or ultimately die for their disobedience. That's not a contract; that's slavery.

Thats a very good, and legitimate counter-argument against the social contract theory, but people do voluntarily live where they live. as long as municipalities are not forcefully homogenized, then a person could legitimately go to someplace else when he doesnt like the rules of the place he is in and into a place where he is more comfortable.

You could say its an unofficial form of consent to a not well defined set of rules.

In any case, I believe in governments at some level because I am pessimistic about human nature, and realize that throughout history transition governments and weak governments have tended to lend themselves to being taken over by shitty people. A minimum government only strong enough to sustain itself, and protect people from other people is ideal.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

rabidfurby

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #111 on: May 21, 2009, 09:41:04 PM »

Thats a very good, and legitimate counter-argument against the social contract theory, but people do voluntarily live where they live. as long as municipalities are not forcefully homogenized, then a person could legitimately go to someplace else when he doesnt like the rules of the place he is in and into a place where he is more comfortable.

So if I lived in a very isolated area - just me and 10 other households in the middle of fucking nowhere - could I get together with 9 of my neighbors, form a "government", and demand that the tenth neighbor follow whatever rules we set up? After all, they're not being forced to stay there, so if they don't like the rules they're free to leave.

You could say its an unofficial form of consent to a not well defined set of rules.

You could also say the same thing about chicks who drink a lot of booze and wear slutty clothing then get raped by asshole frat boys.
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #112 on: May 22, 2009, 12:43:56 PM »

Social contract theory has been debunked roundly by Spooner, Tucker, Mises, Rothbard, and many others. It's as silly a theory as the geocentric model of the solar system. But I'll boil down the argument for you:

A contract is a form of consent. There can be no such thing as a contract without the knowledge and consent of the contractor. You do not consent to anything by being born. There is no agreement between a person and the government, except that the person shall obey the government and respect their monopoly on legal violence, or ultimately die for their disobedience. That's not a contract; that's slavery.

Thats a very good, and legitimate counter-argument against the social contract theory, but people do voluntarily live where they live. as long as municipalities are not forcefully homogenized, then a person could legitimately go to someplace else when he doesnt like the rules of the place

How did they come to be the "rules of the place" and not just rules that certain people are bound buy? I mean, why link the rules to a particular place.

Further, this seems a little odd. Are you saying that, if the borders of the USA were redrawn a little further North, all those Canadians who failed to move out of that area have some how consented to be bound by the laws they are subject to?

If I movced into your neighbourhood and said "anybody who doesn't choose tho move across town is thereby choosing to live here, under my rules, would you really think that residents in your neighbourhood had voluntarily agreed to be subject to my rules?

If you were off to your friend's house and when you got there you found a stranger to both you and your friend standing at the edge of the border to your friend's property, and the stranger says "go in there, and you are agreeing to my rules," whould you consider entering really proof of a contractual agreement to bind yourself by the stranger's rules when you were on your friend's property?
Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #113 on: May 24, 2009, 10:49:43 PM »



How did they come to be the "rules of the place" and not just rules that certain people are bound buy? I mean, why link the rules to a particular place.

Further, this seems a little odd. Are you saying that, if the borders of the USA were redrawn a little further North, all those Canadians who failed to move out of that area have some how consented to be bound by the laws they are subject to?

If I movced into your neighbourhood and said "anybody who doesn't choose tho move across town is thereby choosing to live here, under my rules, would you really think that residents in your neighbourhood had voluntarily agreed to be subject to my rules?

If you were off to your friend's house and when you got there you found a stranger to both you and your friend standing at the edge of the border to your friend's property, and the stranger says "go in there, and you are agreeing to my rules," whould you consider entering really proof of a contractual agreement to bind yourself by the stranger's rules when you were on your friend's property?


Not moving is tacit consent. Keep in mind that I am just being the Dveils advocate here.
The rules cant be specific. They have to be about broad ranging types of behavior. Such as: living in civilized society means you cant cut off your neighbors head and drink his blood.

People already engage in voluntarily moving into places with social structures. Some people live in Housing Developments with a myriad of arcane rules that must be agreed to before the house is bought such as house color, and grass length. Some people live in communes, because they already agreed to the rules the  commune lives by. There is tacit agreement to many rules.

When you go into a business, dont you think you consent to the rules? You wouldnt smoke in a nonsmoking restaurant, or drink in a church. Those places have every right to set up their governing principles.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #114 on: May 25, 2009, 06:29:35 AM »



How did they come to be the "rules of the place" and not just rules that certain people are bound buy? I mean, why link the rules to a particular place.

Further, this seems a little odd. Are you saying that, if the borders of the USA were redrawn a little further North, all those Canadians who failed to move out of that area have some how consented to be bound by the laws they are subject to?

If I movced into your neighbourhood and said "anybody who doesn't choose tho move across town is thereby choosing to live here, under my rules, would you really think that residents in your neighbourhood had voluntarily agreed to be subject to my rules?

If you were off to your friend's house and when you got there you found a stranger to both you and your friend standing at the edge of the border to your friend's property, and the stranger says "go in there, and you are agreeing to my rules," whould you consider entering really proof of a contractual agreement to bind yourself by the stranger's rules when you were on your friend's property?


Not moving is tacit consent. Keep in mind that I am just being the Dveils advocate here.[/quote[##No it isn't. Failure to leave your neighbourhood when a gang of thieves burgles people there does not indicate consent to be burgled. If I busted into your house late one night and said, whilst you live here, you abide by my rules, would you seriously agree, and say that your failure to leave was tacit consent to my rules, and therefore a contractual agreement? Of course not.

The argument from tacit consent is circular: It assumes that the state has a legitimate claim over its territory in order to use such an assumption in an argument aimed at showing that the state is legitimate. But if the conclusion is in doubt, then the truth of that premise cannot be accepted.

Quote
People already engage in voluntarily moving into places with social structures. Some people live in Housing Developments with a myriad of arcane rules that must be agreed to before the house is bought such as house color, and grass length. Some people live in communes, because they already agreed to the rules the  commune lives by. There is tacit agreement to many rules.

When you go into a business, dont you think you consent to the rules? You wouldnt smoke in a nonsmoking restaurant, or drink in a church. Those places have every right to set up their governing principles.


But these examples are not analogous: The rules of the restaurant a set by the owner of the restaurant. The rules of the church are set by the owner of the church. Are you saying that the government owns the entire country, and all land inn it? If not then how does your analogy hold? That is precisely my point in the above examples: You own your housem so staying there when some invader says "leave or abide by my rules" doesn't indicate a voluntary agreement to abide by his rules. You have already assume that the person giving the rules is the legitimate authority in that situation for tacit consent to be anywhere near binding. For instance, if you were at a board meeting and the chairman said, "right, that's all business concluded. We'll meet again the same time next Tuesday. Any objections?" pauses, then, "fine, see you all then," we can assume that you had tacitly consented to meet the same time next week. But if a caretake strolled into the meeting and said the same thing, you wouldn't. Why? Because it is not the caretaker's job to set the time and date of the next meeting. The chairman there is the legitimate authority.

So, as I said, you have to already presume that the state is the legitimate authority for tacit consent to work. But since the very issue it is meant to be resolving is whether or not the government is the legitimate authority, that renders the argument circular.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is the NAP Necessary?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 33 queries.