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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Is the NAP Necessary?  (Read 26093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2009, 02:30:14 PM »

You could say the NAP conflicts with government, but it doesn't necessarily.  Its possible to have a government that is only limited to those who consented to be governed.  In that case, nobody has been agressed upon. 

How do distinguish these "governments" from other institutions? Firstly, this would mean that you are your house mate could be citizens of different governments, that there could be as many "governments" within an area as there are people, because each person signs up to a different "government."

Second, if these governments provide services, and allow others to compete with them in the provision of those services, what makes them any different from private firms that provide those services? If I can get my rights protected by your consensual "government" and I can get them protected by a security firm, then why is your "government" a government, and not just a security firm?

In the end, this consensual "government" idea is no different from market anarchism.

I made the point that they are pretty much the same thing.  The only differences would be that if a group of people contracted with a consensual government, they could create their own rules and leaders through democratic voting or something pre agreed upon.  For example, i could purchase a large amount of land and create my own voluntary government.  If my land became desirable, people might want to move to my community.  My voluntary government would have requirements that the community agrees upon before they move in. 

This situation is distinguished from a security firm, because its more of a private neighborhood with its own protections and restrictions than solely a protection agency. 

Possibly. I think that you (or the association) would only be a government in this case, though, if only you authorised the use of force in this community. People might buy association protection services as condition of signing up, just like they buy other utilities when they join the planned community, but they may still retain the right to top that up buy hiring others, and can also hire protection from a competitor to protect against abuses of power (breach of contract) by you or the communal association. This also would make it different from a state (I can't get the French government to enforce my constitutional rights, for instance, and not just because the french government doesn't want to).

Quote
In any case, its a rather unlikely idea but i'm convinced that some people want to be governed. 

You know, I hear that a lot, but I don't believe it. They may say they want government, but when you ask them why they say things like "oh, we want roads." Well, that doesn't mean you want government, that means you want someone to provide roads. Or "We want police," but the same goes again - you don't want a government, you want somebody to provide police. You see what I mean? They are confusing the goods provided with the institution providing them, and so assuming that not wanting that institution is the same as not wanting those goods.
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 #31 on: May 09, 2009, 03:32:38 PM »

The NAP certainly does permit the use of force by agents of the victims of aggression. If A witnesses the commission of a crime against B by C, and B yells for help, why should he not be permitted to delegate his right of self-defense to A? Or if A stops the crime, without B's asking for help, B's right of self-defense has been nonetheless been exercised through the agency of A. The difference is that the delegation was implicit, rather than explicit.

The NAP makes assumptions of prevailing behavior. There is a general assumption that property owners do not want their front yards used as latrines, even if there is no sign making that prohibition explicit. There is a general assumption that a closed door means you aren't invited to enter. There is a general assumption that if a person is under attack, that person wants to be saved. Exceptions not made explicit by the exceptors would not be enforced, because people operate under assumptions derived from prevailing behavior.

Also, since most law would be developed as codes of conduct by DROs and insurers, that sort of thing would be worked out ahead of time. So whereas B from my example has the right to retroactively refuse A's interference in the crime, it is unlikely that any DRO would act upon such a complaint.
Logged
I am an anarchist! HOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2009, 03:49:09 PM »

I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion" here, or why you think justice cannot be provided without it.

There are plenty of prominant minimal statists, or people who have claimed to be such, who also claim to hold to the NAP or some similar thing (non-initiation of force): Take Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, David Kelley, John Hospers, etc.

Of course, I think they are wrong, and they should either admit they support aggression or become anarchists (and I reckon Hospers really is an anarchist), but there you go!

It seems like you answered your own question.  Many, probably most, criminals will not voluntarily punish themselves or even submit to judgment.  Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2009, 03:55:20 PM »

The NAP certainly does permit the use of force by agents of the victims of aggression. If A witnesses the commission of a crime against B by C, and B yells for help, why should he not be permitted to delegate his right of self-defense to A? Or if A stops the crime, without B's asking for help, B's right of self-defense has been nonetheless been exercised through the agency of A. The difference is that the delegation was implicit, rather than explicit.

The NAP makes assumptions of prevailing behavior. There is a general assumption that property owners do not want their front yards used as latrines, even if there is no sign making that prohibition explicit. There is a general assumption that a closed door means you aren't invited to enter. There is a general assumption that if a person is under attack, that person wants to be saved. Exceptions not made explicit by the exceptors would not be enforced, because people operate under assumptions derived from prevailing behavior.

Also, since most law would be developed as codes of conduct by DROs and insurers, that sort of thing would be worked out ahead of time. So whereas B from my example has the right to retroactively refuse A's interference in the crime, it is unlikely that any DRO would act upon such a complaint.

This relies on someone giving a shit about B and interfering on B's behalf.
Logged

jeffersonish

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2009, 03:56:43 PM »

Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

LOL... It is funny how a minarchist in this community can be considered a statist, but if you're like me, you go out in the world to conduct the rest of your life and you get called a radical anarchist for suggesting that socialist healthcare is a bad thing. As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam."
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2009, 04:24:54 PM »

I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion" here, or why you think justice cannot be provided without it.

There are plenty of prominant minimal statists, or people who have claimed to be such, who also claim to hold to the NAP or some similar thing (non-initiation of force): Take Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, David Kelley, John Hospers, etc.

Of course, I think they are wrong, and they should either admit they support aggression or become anarchists (and I reckon Hospers really is an anarchist), but there you go!

It seems like you answered your own question.  Many, probably most, criminals will not voluntarily punish themselves or even submit to judgment.  Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2009, 04:27:34 PM »

Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2009, 04:49:25 PM »

Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

LOL... It is funny how a minarchist in this community can be considered a statist, but if you're like me, you go out in the world to conduct the rest of your life and you get called a radical anarchist for suggesting that socialist healthcare is a bad thing. As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam."

I hear ya :P

I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion" here, or why you think justice cannot be provided without it.

There are plenty of prominant minimal statists, or people who have claimed to be such, who also claim to hold to the NAP or some similar thing (non-initiation of force): Take Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, David Kelley, John Hospers, etc.

Of course, I think they are wrong, and they should either admit they support aggression or become anarchists (and I reckon Hospers really is an anarchist), but there you go!

It seems like you answered your own question.  Many, probably most, criminals will not voluntarily punish themselves or even submit to judgment.  Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

Yeah, pretty much.  Sometimes I enjoy the anarchist/minarchist debate, but I've had it so many times that it's gotten pretty old.  Everyone knows how it goes by now ;)
Logged

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2009, 05:52:35 PM »

I don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend the minimal government model. Under a libertarian government, you retain the right to ignore the state. If you do, then the state has no interest in you, and will not aggress against you unless you aggress against someone who has voluntarily accepted their protection service. But, don't expect to make use of the courts or police. (And, I think you'll find it very difficult to enter into contracts should you opt out of the common system.)

I assume there would be competing "government" systems. Call them DROs if it comforts you.
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

mikegogulski

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2009, 07:38:10 PM »

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

We care because we don't trust you -- or anyone else -- with the privilege remaining after step 999. Nor should we. Nor should you, for that matter.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2009, 07:54:51 PM »

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

We care because we don't trust you -- or anyone else -- with the privilege remaining after step 999. Nor should we. Nor should you, for that matter.

Since step 999 is about as likely to happen as unicorns swimming across the Atlantic, who cares? 
Logged

mikegogulski

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2009, 07:57:33 PM »

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

We care because we don't trust you -- or anyone else -- with the privilege remaining after step 999. Nor should we. Nor should you, for that matter.

Since step 999 is about as likely to happen as unicorns swimming across the Atlantic, who cares? 
Jeez, I dunno, like, maybe people who think that philosophy is important to political reality, and who are grateful that, at least, the "divine right of kings" justification for unaccountable power has been laughed out of serious discussion?

I'm just saying...

BTW, what's your problem with unicorns?
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2009, 06:07:36 AM »

Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

Oh, I think the debate can be taken seriously, because it is interesting and informative.
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2009, 06:12:05 AM »

I don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend the minimal government model. Under a libertarian government, you retain the right to ignore the state. If you do, then the state has no interest in you, and will not aggress against you unless you aggress against someone who has voluntarily accepted their protection service. But, don't expect to make use of the courts or police. (And, I think you'll find it very difficult to enter into contracts should you opt out of the common system.)

The boom in private arbitration occurred when arbitration resolutions were not enforcible in public courts, and the Law Merchant evolved precisely because people couldn't get one standard recognised by one court to be recognised by others. I think you may be wrong about the "common system".

In fact, the Law Merchant evolved to provide a common system of rules or laws where states weren't providing them.

Quote
I assume there would be competing "government" systems. Call them DROs if it comforts you.

I will. It stretches language entirely out of shape to call them governments.
Logged

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2009, 06:16:10 AM »

Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

except that some minarchists...aren't anywhere close to "mini" anything...so, in those cases...there is still a big gap between "some gunpoint government" and NO gunpoint government...

True, but even that would be an improvement. the government of the Friedman's Free to Choose is bigger than the government of Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, which is bigger than the "government" of Hospers' Libertarianism, which is more government than in Rothbard's For a New Liberty. But Free to Choose is a vast improvement on what we have today, and it would be silly for anarchists to reject working for a small reduction of the state with people who don't want to go further just because it is not the complete abolition of the state, and their allies don't want that.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is the NAP Necessary?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 32 queries.