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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Is the NAP Necessary?  (Read 26303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #60 on: May 11, 2009, 01:59:29 PM »

Look man, nobody cares what you have to say because you sound like a raving lunatic. 

Your delivery is just so mindbogglingly counter productive, that i question if you even believe the things you say. 

Your living vicariously through your keyboard, but the world you think you experience is the opposite of the world you project.



I'd say Rob was a Poe, but I've seen videos of him in NH.
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Richard Garner

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 303
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #61 on: May 11, 2009, 02:08:14 PM »

Hmmm....I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT OR TOLERATE EVEN A PERCENTAGE OF RAPE...Hmmm...

Yes you are, because you are saying that we shouldn't work with those that want to cut rapes by 50%, when not working with them won't lead to any reduction in the number of rapes. You are saying "better that don't cut rape at all than we work with people that only want to cut it 50%."

and yet still...

WHY would you even want to be around such a person?

WHY?

I personally could not be in the same ROOM with a person that is "ok" with "fifty-percent of rapes"!

WHAT THE FUCK SKIPPY!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, if the alternative is being in a room with somebody who would rather not cut any rape than work with somebody who is willing to end only 50%, the choice seems easy.

Quote from: Murray N. Rothbard
In the field of strategic thinking, it behooves libertarians to heed the lessons of the Marxists, because they have been thinking about strategy for radical social change longer than any other group. Thus, the Marxists see two critically important strategic fallacies that “deviate” from the proper path: one they call “left-wing sectarianism”; the other, and opposing, deviation is “right-wing opportunism.” The critics of libertarian “extremist” principles are the analog of the Marxian “right-wing opportunists.” The major problem with the opportunists is that by confining themselves strictly to gradual and “practical” programs, programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, they are in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective, the libertarian goal. Hewho confines himself to calling for a two percent reduction in taxes helps to bury the ultimate goal of abolition of taxation altogether. By concentrating on the immediate means, he helps liquidate the ultimate
goal, and therefore the point of being a libertarian in the first place. If libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? The answer is no one, hence another major source of defection from the ranks in recent years has been the erroneous path of opportunism.

...If, then, the libertarian must advocate the immediate attainment of liberty and abolition of statism, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to this overriding end, what further strategic stance may a libertarian take in today’s world? Must he necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are “transitional demands,” steps toward liberty in practice, necessarily illegitimate? No, for this would fall into the other self-defeating strategic trap of “left-wing sectarianism.” For while libertarians have too often been opportunists who lose sight of or undercut their ultimate goal, some have erred in the opposite direction: fearing and condemning any advances toward the idea as necessarily selling out the goal itself. The tragedy is that these sectarians, in condemning all advances that fall short of the goal, serve to render vain and futile the cherished goal itself. For much as all of us wo uld be overjoyed to arrive at total liberty at a single bound, the realistic prospects for such a mighty leap are limited. If social change is not always tiny and gradual, neither does it usually occur in a single leap. In rejecting any transitional approachesto the goal, then, these sectarian libertarians make it impossible for the goal itself ever to be reached. Thus, the sectarians can eventually be as fully “liquidationist” of the pure goal as the opportunists themselves

...How, then, can we know whether any halfway measure or transitional demand should be hailed as a step forward or condemned as an opportunistic betrayal? There are two vitally important criteria for answering this crucial question: (1) that, whatever the transitional demands, the ultimate end of liberty be always held aloft as the desired goal; and (2) that no steps or means ever explicitly or implicitly contradict the ultimate goal. A shortrun demand may not go as far as we would like, but it should always be consistent with the final end; if not, the short-run goal will work against the long-run purpose, and opportunistic liquidation of libertarian principle will have arrived.

You are the dude in bold.
Logged

Alex Free Market

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #62 on: May 11, 2009, 02:10:37 PM »

I agree with NHArticleTen on just about every single thing I have ever seen him write, and find myself largely agreeing with MaineShark, as well.


I think if NHArticleTen bumped up the rhetoric ten times what he is currently doing, he would still be well within the bounds of advocating what needs to be done.  
Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #63 on: May 11, 2009, 02:13:44 PM »

I agree with NHArticleTen on just about every single thing I have ever seen him write, and find myself largely agreeing with MaineShark, as well.


I think if NHArticleTen bumped up the rhetoric ten times what he is currently doing, he would still be well within the bounds of advocating what needs to be done.  

you are clearly not familiar with anything Rob has said.
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #64 on: May 11, 2009, 05:52:35 PM »

you obviously have no idea what a poe is
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #65 on: May 11, 2009, 07:38:13 PM »

I hope NH10 feels a miserable sense of futility, now that I deleted his big irrelevent posts.


Onto the real discussion.
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

Kevin Freeheart

  • FTL AMPlifier Gold
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 536
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #66 on: May 11, 2009, 08:07:35 PM »

It's possible to be pro-liberty without adherence to the non-aggression principle. But the NAP is the core of libertarianism. You might be a neoconservative or a classical liberal and have most of the same stances as a libertarian, depending on what it is you value (and everyone does, even if they can't identify it).

There are some people who say that the NAP and libertarianism aren't connected... Those people are why I don't use the term "libertarian" for myself except in rare circumstances.

I would furthermore say to be a PRINCIPLED libertarian, you must be an anarchist as well.

That said, I'm interested in liberty, and until the minarchists become the comparative advocates of "large government", the point is moot and you're my ally where we agree.
Logged
Quote from: John Shaw
Libman was setting you up. You see, he's a resident troll, which means that while I hate him passionately and wish him great harm, he's ONE OF OURS. You are a pathetic interloper who will fade away in a few weeks at most.

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #67 on: May 12, 2009, 02:40:22 PM »

It's possible to be pro-liberty without adherence to the non-aggression principle. But the NAP is the core of libertarianism. You might be a neoconservative or a classical liberal and have most of the same stances as a libertarian, depending on what it is you value (and everyone does, even if they can't identify it).

There are some people who say that the NAP and libertarianism aren't connected... Those people are why I don't use the term "libertarian" for myself except in rare circumstances.

I would furthermore say to be a PRINCIPLED libertarian, you must be an anarchist as well.

That said, I'm interested in liberty, and until the minarchists become the comparative advocates of "large government", the point is moot and you're my ally where we agree.

I am wholly a libertarian who is self styled. I think any government run by reason and prudence is best, and that the NAP does not necessarily have to be the basis for libertarian thought.

Why is the NAP necessary for libertarian thought? What is their essential connection?
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 #68 on: May 12, 2009, 02:46:23 PM »

It's possible to be pro-liberty without adherence to the non-aggression principle. But the NAP is the core of libertarianism. You might be a neoconservative or a classical liberal and have most of the same stances as a libertarian, depending on what it is you value (and everyone does, even if they can't identify it).

There are some people who say that the NAP and libertarianism aren't connected... Those people are why I don't use the term "libertarian" for myself except in rare circumstances.

I would furthermore say to be a PRINCIPLED libertarian, you must be an anarchist as well.

That said, I'm interested in liberty, and until the minarchists become the comparative advocates of "large government", the point is moot and you're my ally where we agree.

I am wholly a libertarian who is self styled. I think any government run by reason and prudence is best, and that the NAP does not necessarily have to be the basis for libertarian thought.

Why is the NAP necessary for libertarian thought? What is their essential connection?

I already gave my beef with the NAP, but I think all states are inherently unjust and unnecessary.
Logged

Alex Free Market

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #69 on: May 12, 2009, 05:42:09 PM »


I am wholly a libertarian who is self styled. I think any government run by reason and prudence is best, and that the NAP does not necessarily have to be the basis for libertarian thought.

Why is the NAP necessary for libertarian thought? What is their essential connection?


Why?  Because it is a deontological bright line rule which attempts to clarify what is, and is not permissible.


Saying that the rule is not necessary, because people who like liberty will more or less follow the rule anyway, doesn't really make sense.   If they are more or less following the NAP anyway, then they are doing it because they explicitly understand that there are bright line demarcations for what people ought, and ought not, to do vis a vis not harming, stealing and defrauding other people.


For the most part, libertarian-oriented people who say they reject the NAP seem to be denying reality.  They are engaged in some silly game of [insert 50 year old burnt out hippy voice] "Don't label me, man.. I'm a non-conformist and I don't need your dogmatic NAP rules oppressing me," and so they seem to reject the "label "more than they do the substance of what is contained in the label.  Which of course, makes the rejection irrational if that is their primary line of thinking.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 09:19:05 PM by Alex Free Market »
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2009, 11:20:13 PM »

For the most part, libertarian-oriented people who say they reject the NAP seem to be denying reality.  They are engaged in some silly game of [insert 50 year old burnt out hippy voice] "Don't label me, man.. I'm a non-conformist and I don't need your dogmatic NAP rules oppressing me," and so they seem to reject the "label "more than they do the substance of what is contained in the label.  Which of course, makes the rejection irrational if that is their primary line of thinking.

What about those of us minarchists who realize that the NAP prohibits any form of government?  The NAP is inconsistent with any government no matter how you slice it.  I don't see myself as being "non-conformist" or hippy-like.  It's simply a fact that I don't agree 100% with the NAP.
Logged

Alex Free Market

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2009, 11:45:04 PM »


What about those of us minarchists who realize that the NAP prohibits any form of government?  The NAP is inconsistent with any government no matter how you slice it.  I don't see myself as being "non-conformist" or hippy-like.  It's simply a fact that I don't agree 100% with the NAP.


Minarchists come in two groups, for the most part, in regards to the NAP:

(1) Those who argue that the State doesn't actually violate the NAP, as governments function is ostensibly to protect peoples Rights, and in doing so, it cannot be argued (by them) that their Rights are being abridged by being protected.

(2) Those who have had the epiphany that the aforementioned group is kind of kidding themselves by thinking that.


I think it is fair to say that the second group is the more enlightened of the two.... but in any case, neither group inherently objects to the substance of the Non Aggression Principle.   What they want, is simply to carve out an exception for a very limited case regarding who the NAP should not apply to (e.g. government).   The exception they seek to carve out, has more to do with defining who is exempt from it, rather than when it should not apply in regards to it being applied to everyone equally.   

The first group of minarchists does not even recognize that they are violating the NAP, so it really cannot be claimed that they are rejecting it.  Rather, they are simply deluding themselves into thinking (via an argument they accept), that government does not violate Rights, it only protects them.   

The second group recognizes the NAP abridgment, but rationalizes it away on whatever grounds (e.. pragmatism insofar as the necessity of government, etc...), but in that case, they are not outright rejecting the substance of the NAP either.  They merely accept that they are inconsistent.  Most minarchists in this group, however, still very much abide by the bright line deontological rule of the NAP insofar as they think it very much applies to inter-citizen conduct.  They merely think it doesn't apply to government.  They are not usually saying it doesn't apply to citizens.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 11:48:42 PM by Alex Free Market »
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2009, 11:58:46 PM »


What about those of us minarchists who realize that the NAP prohibits any form of government?  The NAP is inconsistent with any government no matter how you slice it.  I don't see myself as being "non-conformist" or hippy-like.  It's simply a fact that I don't agree 100% with the NAP.


Minarchists come in two groups, for the most part, in regards to the NAP:

(1) Those who argue that the State doesn't actually violate the NAP, as governments function is ostensibly to protect peoples Rights, and in doing so, it cannot be argued (by them) that their Rights are being abridged by being protected.

(2) Those who have had the epiphany that the aforementioned group is kind of kidding themselves by thinking that.


I think it is fair to say that the second group is the more enlightened of the two.... but in any case, neither group inherently objects to the substance of the Non Aggression Principle.   What they want, is simply to carve out an exception for a very limited case regarding who the NAP should not apply to (e.g. government).   The exception they seek to carve out, has more to do with defining who is exempt from it, rather than when it should not apply in regards to it being applied to everyone equally.   

The first group of minarchists does not even recognize that they are violating the NAP, so it really cannot be claimed that they are rejecting it.  Rather, they are simply deluding themselves into thinking (via an argument they accept), that government does not violate Rights, it only protects them.   

The second group recognizes the NAP abridgment, but rationalizes it away on whatever grounds (e.. pragmatism insofar as the necessity of government, etc...), but in that case, they are not outright rejecting the substance of the NAP either.  They merely accept that they are inconsistent.  Most minarchists in this group, however, still very much abide by the bright line deontological rule of the NAP insofar as they think it very much applies to inter-citizen conduct.  They merely think it doesn't apply to government.  They are not usually saying it doesn't apply to citizens.

I was specifically talking about minarchists who realize that government violates the NAP.  I don't think I'm inconsistent unless I'm being judged by the NAP.  However, I reject the NAP so I think it's silly to judge me as inconsistent based on a principle I don't believe in.  I hope you realize that most people in America would probably agree with your same argument applied to a slightly different context.  Libertarians are inconsistent because they nominally share some positions with both Republicans and Democrats simultaneously.  Most people use the Democrat-Republican yardstick, not the NAP.  So, are we all inconsistent here?
Logged

Alex Free Market

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #73 on: May 13, 2009, 12:12:57 AM »


I was specifically talking about minarchists who realize that government violates the NAP.  I don't think I'm inconsistent unless I'm being judged by the NAP.  However, I reject the NAP so I think it's silly to judge me as inconsistent based on a principle I don't believe in.  I hope you realize that most people in America would probably agree with your same argument applied to a slightly different context.  Libertarians are inconsistent because they nominally share some positions with both Republicans and Democrats simultaneously.  Most people use the Democrat-Republican yardstick, not the NAP.  So, are we all inconsistent here?

Republicans and Democrats have virtually no underlying philosophy.   Their beliefs are literally incoherent.   Normal people might use them as a yardstick because they don't know any better... People who understand philosophy should never be looking to these two useless groups for any sort of reference by which to compare themselves to.  Neither group has any kind of underlying first principle from which all of their beliefs on every single issue conceivable, then logically flow from.


I will have to read further back through the thread to see why you specifically objected to the NAP, before I offer any further commentary, as I need to know exactly what it is you oppose about the NAP, beyond the fact that you think the government should be exempt from it.    Do you actually object to the NAP applying to inter-citizen conduct?
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #74 on: May 13, 2009, 12:31:48 AM »

Here it is:

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.

Government is made of citizens.  Therefore, there are certain citizens whom I would grant the power to violate the NAP in certain circumstances.  Sure, say that I am "excluding" a specific case, but that is still a violation of the NAP.  The NAP is not stated as something that is sometimes optional.  It's axiomatic and it defines the core of anarchist libertarian beliefs.  That's not where I'm coming from, and that's not where I ended up.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is the NAP Necessary?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 47 queries.