The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: ReasonableVoice on January 25, 2014, 07:06:57 AM
-
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 : ???
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
#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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And we prefere the term Napster Miz Voice.
-
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)
-
I meant me and the mouse in my pocket. I call him "Nappy". You really think having more people screwing around playing god will improve things Mr. Voice? What is your problem with voluntary societies? If you want to move to a neghborhood where everybody has a elected government official go for it. I'll be over here in the society with agreed on rules and a administrater or two. Everybody wins in Anarchy.Racist can live in racistville, commies can share everything and starve, and open minded makers can thrive and build.
-
RE: I'll be over here in the society with agreed on rules and a administrater or two.
administrator or two ?
Who chooses who will be the administrators ?
Would those be elected, or self appointed, or someone else playing god or what ?
============================================
RE: What is your problem with voluntary societies?
What makes you think I have a problem with voluntary societies ?
A Minarchist society implemented on NAP IS A VOLUNTARY SOCIETY
Have you not read this thread from the beginning ?
==============================================
RE: agreed on rules
How is the set of rules determined ?
How do you know who agrees to the rules ?
What if someone doesn't agree ?
-
I would hire the administrators I guess, like any other manager. No I haven't read most of the thread, it is boring. What part of "agreed on rules." did you not savy?
You move to a place, or set up a comunity, with rules you like (or can live with) and sign off on them, just like HOAs do now.
-
What part of "agreed on rules." did you not savy?
Who set up the rules ?
What if someone doesn't agree ?
You move to a place, or set up a comunity, with rules you like (or can live with) and sign off on them, just like HOAs do now.
When you want to move, where do you go to find the rules for the community ?
And what if there is no place you can move to with rules you can live with ?
-
Well if we had the one representitive for every two people monopoly of force you propose we would probably have less choices then now. In a Anarchist society little voluntary comunities would probably pop up all over the place. Busybodies who live to be a pain in the ass wouldn't peep up or have a limited life expectancy I recon.
-
Well if we had the one representitive for every two people monopoly of force you propose we would probably have less choices then now.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I don't recognize this as my proposal.
As I proposed above there would be at least 3000(minimum) to choose from (compared to 50 today)
with possibility of many more.
-
If 3000 representitive were good, wouldn't every third person being a government official be even better?
-
If 3000 representitive were good, wouldn't every third person being a government official be even better?
I'll take that to mean you are not interested in any serious discussion.
If you want to discuss, please answer the questions already posed to you.
-
I would hire the administrators I guess, like any other manager. No I haven't read most of the thread, it is boring. What part of "agreed on rules." did you not savy?
You move to a place, or set up a comunity, with rules you like (or can live with) and sign off on them, just like HOAs do now.
That doesn't account for people not yet born who have not consented and will not.
-
I would hire the administrators I guess, like any other manager. No I haven't read most of the thread, it is boring. What part of "agreed on rules." did you not savy?
You move to a place, or set up a comunity, with rules you like (or can live with) and sign off on them, just like HOAs do now.
That doesn't account for people not yet born who have not consented and will not.
It's also a confession of a Minarchist view, though one with unelected rather than elected governance.
-
If I hire a manager and security guards, and they start to try to rule me they would be fired. I once worked as a bouncer. I mouthed off to the owner, I would have had a bad day and so would the night club superviser had he decided to act badass.
If everybody respected and helped enforced the NAP all the sudden, people would be free to move around. People who tried to imprison kids, wives, combinations of the two, etc. would have a bad day when caught.
I never said I would live in a closed neighborhood if there was anarchy, I am a industrial farm/factory out of the way sort of dude. The closed comunities thing lets Anarcho Socialist, seperatists*, and other wacky racers I have no wish to asociate with, somewhere to live while they evolve. I am sure some people want to live in kid free zones, family freindly places, singles places etc. because they do right now. With Anarchy there is no reason those things would disappear.
*When I say seperatist I mean racists of all stripes, gay bashers, that sort of thing. Many Anarchist think this sort of stupidity would somehow disappear in a "good" anarchy. I don't.
-
If I hire a manager and security guards, and they start to try to rule me they would be fired.
Perhaps I need to discover what you meant by "administrater".
I presumed you meant someone to perform some type of governance for the community, not just your own club.
Not knowing what the rules of the community are or how the rules would be determined, I am left guessing a lot.
( previously unanswered questions posed to you )
-
We are talking Anarchy dude. The only rules you would follow are the ones you agreed to. A administrative body is all you would need at most. Say a bunch of black people didn't want the stink of whitey around. They would live in a segregated community. If They had a child who grew up wanting that sweet, sweet white poon tang they would go to a nearby comunity that wasn't full of racist idiots. No one would stop any of that happening if no agression took place. Some kid would be disowned by a bunch of bigots who keep to themselves, no loss for anyone- no one hurts anyone.
That is the most extreme version I can think of.
Like I said some people would live in NoruleNojudgementville as well, they would have binding written contracts and private arbitration instead. I am sure there would also be comunities I can't even imagine. Some would be awsome, some would suck. The sucky ones would die out in a generation or two. I can't tell you what rules you would want to live by. They are your rules.
You tell me. :lol:
-
A administrative body is all you would need at most.
Need to administrate what ?
Please answer the previously posed questions.
-
Who set up the rules ? The people who built the comunity.
What if someone doesn't agree ? They leave or get lonely. I wouldn't move to a place that didn't have a clear clause for ending a contract. Anyone that did in a free society would be sol.
When you want to move, where do you go to find the rules for the community ? Probably clearly written on the contract for renting or buying a property.
And what if there is no place you can move to with rules you can live with ? One would homestead on unclaimed land.
-
Say a bunch of black people didn't want the stink of whitey around. They would live in a segregated community. If They had a child who grew up wanting that sweet, sweet white poon tang they would go to a nearby comunity that wasn't full of racist
A small community of people with an agreed to set of rules, such as no racist discrimination rules, would have little chance of maintaining that all people followed the rules in their small community if a kid who liked that community moved there and a hoard of bigoted racists from that kid’s family and relatives moved in too.
Any they aint leavin' without someone gettin' hurt.
(This is not unrealistic )
The sucky ones would die out in a generation or two.
It is reasonable to believe that the sucky communities would thrive and the others would die out.
OVERALL philosophy . . .
In anarchy, there is no protection for the communities at large.
In anarchy, there will be those who aggress against people and communities with "agreed to rules" - no different from today - and voluntary adherence to rules is the same as no rules to those who do not follow rules.
And if the morality is "let the strong who violate NAP survive and let the weak who adhere to NAP die off", that morality is at odds with NAP in my view and the primary reason for implementing NAP by way of minarchism so that there is community wide (defensive violence - per NAP) protection.
If a minarchist society has a constitution (NAP rule of law for the community at large) of governance
then the weak in that community who follow the NAP rule of law(constitution) can be protected from the strong who do not follow the NAP rule of law(constitution).
-
Who set up the rules ? The people who built the comunity.
In every community ?
Or could there be dictatorship-like communities ?
What if someone doesn't agree ? They leave or get lonely.
And if they did not leave and did not get lonely, then what ?
Such as a hoard of racists that move into a small nondiscrimination rules community and choose to stay.
When you want to move, where do you go to find the rules for the community ? Probably clearly written on the contract for renting or buying a property.
And if there is no written contract anywhere ?
AND . . . if there is a dictatorship-like community with no written contract, then what ?
And what if there is no place you can move to with rules you can live with ? One would homestead on unclaimed land.
And if there was no unclaimed land (such as most places today) ?
-
Bullies you are so worried about have limited life expectantcies in a place where everybody is armed. Those problem do not exist in closed communities now to any degree, I don't see why they would exist in a free society either.
-
Who set up the rules ? The people who built the comunity.
In every community ?
Or could there be dictatorship-like communities ? Yep. Stupid David Koresh crap would probably turn up. Without any state they probably wouldn't be burned to death though.
What if someone doesn't agree ? They leave or get lonely.
And if they did not leave and did not get lonely, then what ?
Such as a hoard of racists that move into a small nondiscrimination rules community and choose to stay. They would be unwelcome. Life would suck. Why would they?
When you want to move, where do you go to find the rules for the community ? Probably clearly written on the contract for renting or buying a property.
And if there is no written contract anywhere ?
AND . . . if there is a dictatorship-like community with no written contract, then what ? We already established the NAP as the ground rule. Your question is contridictory.
And what if there is no place you can move to with rules you can live with ? One would homestead on unclaimed land.
And if there was no unclaimed land (such as most places today) ? In a free society no one could claim land they were not using or improving. Successful societies have less population growth then poor statists one. It is unlikely the earth would run out of usable land.
-
And if they did not leave and did not get lonely, then what ?
Such as a hoard of racists that move into a small nondiscrimination rules community and choose to stay.
They would be unwelcome. Life would suck. Why would they?
Why would life suck ? They get to poke at those nondiscrimination flunkies.
It is reasonable to believe that the racists in this community would then thrive.
if there is a dictatorship-like community with no written contract, then what ? We already established the NAP as the ground rule. Your question is contridictory.
NAP was not established as the ground rule as you have not provided answers to the original questions.
If you claim Anarchy implements NAP, please identify how it does that.
In a free society no one could claim land they were not using or improving.
This conclusion is not in keeping with the reality of claims to property even in a free society.
How did you arrive at this conclusion ? What constitutes use ?
If land is being used for conservation, are you saying that is not a valid use of land in a free society ?
-
Ah fuck got meself in one of those fucking rabbit holes. Oh well I am sure many enjoy watching me stretch a bit, nice to see traffic in the old barroom again.....
Look lady, Anarchy to me is "without government". "Voluntaryism" has less baggage, lets go with that. For a society to actually have Voluntaryism, everybody would have to respect the NAP. If someone decides to break the NAP and rule... you taint got Voluntaryism or "Anarchy" anymere. You got communism, tribalism er some other form of slavery, Savy? If you want to argue that voluntryism will always revert to some sort of tyranny, fine. You may be right.
I can either argue the merits of a free society or speculate on how it might look. I can't try and do both with undefined turms. OK?
-
I can either argue the merits of a free society or speculate on how it might look. I can't try and do both with undefined turms. OK?
I dig. And "free society" is one of those terms.
I think it is a given based on the original post that a "free society"(NAP) is meritorious.
The overall direction of the original questions are aimed at "how to implement" such a society.
That implementation could be called "how it might look"
or at least the implementation will affect how it might look.
SO THEN . . .
Some might define "free society" as exercise of freedoms apart from exercise of responsibilities.
But that falls short as healthy communities (free society, if you will ) requires exercise of responsibilities along side the exercise of freedoms. I think this is a given BUT
this "requirement to exercise of responsibility"(sufficiently enough to promote healthy society),
in turn, implies some way(implementation) is needed for society to deal with those who fail to exercise such responsibilities.
What are the responsibilities ? . . . This question takes us back to square one - the three beginning questions of this thread . . .
#1 was . . .
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 )
This first question is basically defining what is meant by NAP.
A common definition (community-wide understanding) of NAP
is essential for the health of a society built upon NAP.
An answer to this question which appears to be arbitrary cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
#2 was . . .
Who is the final arbiter of determining how much harm has been caused and
what the remedy should be ?
This question is really just an extension of the first question but applying the common definition to specific circumstances.
Again, an answer which appears to be arbitrary cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
#3 was . . .
If remedy toward the injured party is not consented to voluntarily,
who should extract ( defensive force ) the remedy ?
This question is an extension of the answer to the second question.
And again, an answer which appears to be arbitrary cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
==================================================================
The fact is (and debating this claimed fact should be the prime starting point as it is the core)
requiring responsibilities is ESSENTIAL to a healthy free society.
The questions of "implementation" simply address how to achieve this ESSENTIAL.
The secondary point to debate would be the conclusions drawn - that is,
Is it true that "arbitrariness" cannot reasonably lead to promoting health of the society.
And this society requiring health is wide-based, though made up of smaller subset societies.
-
I agree people would have to take responsability for their actions. Was that ever in question? I also think property rights are vital. (anarcho socialists can own property as a group) This puffin explains the NAP as I understand it. Stefan Molyneux thought DROs would be a good solution for arbitration. (a organisation sort of like a insurence company) Here are some videos. Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0#ws) Non-Aggression Principle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o#ws)
-
I would appreciate if you would quote or describe whatever you feel are pertinent parts of videos.
Thank you
The Puffin video did not address providing for restitution without arbitrariness.
I don't consider that to be a proper expounding of the meaning of NAP or description of how to implement it.
The Puffin video did address immediate self defense, but that is only part of the Rule of law.
Stefan Molyneux thought DROs would be a good solution for arbitration. (a organisation sort of like a insurence company)
Are you saying you agree with Stefan Molyneux about that solution ?
Regardless . . .
I disagree with that solution to stand in place of
"Rule of law" as implemented by minarchism(with a NAP constitution).
Why ? Because "Rule of law" is the core for providing for the health of a free society.
( And "required responsibility" is part of "Rue of law" )
"Rule of law" needs to be ever present (guarantee, if you will) ;
otherwise, the individuals within the society cannot be assured that their natural rights will be protected.
( which leads to an unhealthy condition for society ).
"Rule of law" is not something that falls in the category of free market MIGHT provide something.
Leaving "Rule of law" to the market means there is no guarantee that competing organizations would
be ever present or even everywhere within the society.
And that lacks fulfilling the "essential need (required responsibility)" for the health of the society.
THAT SAID . . .
such a solution(third party arbitration) is not wholly without merit and I am not against its use SO LONG AS
the "Rule of law" is still in place for appeal to when that solution is viewed as arbitrary(unsatisfactory) to
anyone who participated and still failed to get what they believe to be proper justice.
In fact, that solution is not unlike current governance where an administrative board performs arbitration
but after arbitration has run its course, the dis-satisfied individual is allowed to appeal to a court of law.
-
As long as I voluntarily agree to said rules and the methods of enforcement there is no problem.
Try and force me to follow your rules then there is one.
That Dispute Resolution Organization thing is a solution for a bunch of statists who wanted to survive comfortably in a place with no one telling them what to do. In a free society kids would not know corperal punishment. I believe violent criminals and theives would disappear after a while if humanity suddenly unshackeled itself. I live in Norway where spanking has been illegal for 2 generations now. Young people are incredably nice, and theives are so rare gyms barely have lockable lockers. I am so unused to passive aggression that it surprised me last time I visited home (the NW USA). Yes Molyneux discusses DROs on a archived podcast, but I don't have a quick to find link. I think it is one of his early ones. He understands it a hell of a lot better then I do. Truth is I don't really care for it. I would choose to live in a neighborhood of nice leave me aloners. :D
-
Did you want to debate either of the two points which I mentioned as being primary or secondary ?
As long as I voluntarily agree to said rules and the methods of enforcement there is no problem.
Try and force me to follow your rules then there is one.
So, in other words you might be a problem in any community since there might be no community you could live with ?
And the rules would not be my individual rules, it would be community-wide rules.
The community exercising those rules as part of the required responsibility that goes along with a free society.
In a free society kids would not know corperal punishment.
How did you arrive at that conclusion ?
A parent exercising punishment of their kid could happen (and likely would happen)
within the confines of the NAP.
I believe violent criminals and theives would disappear after a while if humanity suddenly unshackeled itself.
How did you arrive at that conclusion ?
A certain portion of humanity is currently unshackled - and they choose to shackle others.
If everyone all of a sudden was unshackled, what makes you think those type of people who like to shackle others now would change their desire ?
I live in Norway where spanking has been illegal for 2 generations now.
Those rules (spanking illegal laws) are not part of the essential Rule of law
necessary for a healthy society, so those laws COULD fit into the smaller communities if desired, but would not be in the NAP constitution.
-
I would argue that beating a, albiet smaller, human being goes against the NAP. It is scientifically proven to permanantly fuck up people. I have rage issues to this day because of my childhood that are untreatable.
I told you, criminals would be pretty rare if we generally stopped breaking our childrens minds. Work with some youth from Scandinavia, then work with American youth and get nothing but aditude for while, and you would be convinced as well. On my channal I made a video showing my son to flip me off, for comedy's sake. To get that done I had to really talk him into it then edit it to make it look right. He didn't even want to pretend to disrespect me like that. I have never hit any of my kids. My dad beat the shit out of me as long as I can remember and I flipped him off, fought yelled and raised hell all on my own.
When it comes to unshackling people what you should be asking is what to do about people who like to be told what to do and taken care of. I guess I would hope that someone would set up little factory town or something and make use of them. Women could always move to a well run structured brothel. So don't worry, you would be fine.
-
I would argue that beating a, albiet smaller, human being goes against the NAP. It is scientifically proven to permanantly fuck up people.
Where is that scientific proof ?
There is a difference between "corporal punishment" and "beating".
Corporal punishment is not generally understood to cover "beating"("beat the shit out of me").
you would be fine.
Be fine about what ?
-
Use your google foo yourself. Prove that it doesn't. Show me a torture victim that isn't messed up. And guess what, when someone you love and trusts hurts you for disobeying them, it is actually worse. Common sense. I am done with this conversation. The post I deleted was full of caps and anger. You are not worth my trouble.
Update: Naw, I have been letting my troll foo etrophy need to train a bit.
-
Show me a torture victim that isn't messed up.
You raised a strawman by switching terms and I pointed it out.
And here you perpetuate the strawman with yet another term.
Again, your point was about corporal punishment and
then you switched topic to beating and then to torture.
That has nothing to do with the original point.
I accept that you do not understand that.
Good luck.
-
http://www.naturalchild.org/research/corporal_punishment.html (http://www.naturalchild.org/research/corporal_punishment.html)
Parenting with Joe Rogan and Stefan Molyneux (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2OGI_EbD08#ws)
The Child rearing thing isn't a strawman. I was making a point that abiding the NAP would create a better human as a aside. You were the one trying to point out that spanking is swell as long as the victim is smaller weaker and under your charge. A strawman would be me pointing out that minarchism always leads to statism as proven in the good old USA and making you defend concentration camps and the purges. Do I need to post a link proving that bad unaccountable people seek power?
-
It would be so awesome to have Joe Rogan as a dad. I think I'd kill myself if Stefan was my dad. I'm glad he's around. Don't get me wrong. I just couldn't take that much of him.
-
RE: alaric89
NAP punishment does not include abuse, but this could include punishment that is defensive in nature, not aggressive.
And your link offered no proof concerning that such defensive(restitution) NON-abusive punishment.
Your refutation that you offered a straw man does nothing to change the fact that you offered a straw man.
Let's review . . .
You claimed, “In a free society kids would not know corperal punishment.”
I responded, “A parent exercising punishment of their kid could happen (and likely would happen) within the confines of the NAP.”
You then converted to a straw man by replying, “I would argue that beating”
I responded -- There is a difference between "corporal punishment" and "beating".
You then continued the straw man further by replying, “Show me a torture victim that isn't messed up.”
I then stated, “your point was about corporal punishment and then you switched topic to beating and then to torture.”
You now replied, “The Child rearing thing isn't a strawman.”
That claim is not intellectually valid.
Further, in an apparent attempt to distract from your invalid refutation, you then mischaracterize my original statement.
I originally stated, “A parent exercising punishment of their kid could happen (and likely would happen) within the confines of the NAP.
You now characterize that as “You were the one trying to point out that spanking is swell as long as the victim is smaller weaker and under your charge.”
This was absolutely not what I was trying to point out and is a ridiculous claim on its face.
You then ask a ridiculous question, “Do I need to post a link proving that bad unaccountable people seek power?”, as if that has anything to do whatsoever with your obvious straw man(though as yet refuted by you).
-
I am sure they are both fine fathers, Dale. So when are you going to point out that me and you argued about the spanking thing and you beat me? Amazing how much I have learned on this BBS. Still find your gay porn annoying but luv ya anyway. :)
-
Miz Voice are you going to refute any of my points? Here is another logical fallacy you should be aware of called a red herring. The whole upbringing thing was a asside. I added my experiences ,anidotal I know, to bolster why I believe it to be true. It was not a straw man, A straw man forces you to take a repugnant posistion that sounds bad. If it was somehow a straw man it was accidental.
-
Mr. Voice are you going to refute any of my points?
. . . .
It was not a straw man, A straw man forces you to take a repugnant posistion that sounds bad.
You aint got to call me Mr, mister.
A straw man does not require a repugnant position.
That argument could, itself, be considered another straw man.
A straw man can be constituted by any argument that is OFF TOPIC.
What points are you talking about that have not been refuted ?
And are any of them on topic ?
-
Ha, you are a chick. I was starting to wonder.
-
Mr. Voice are you going to refute any of my points?
Hehe. No, he's not.
Here is another logical fallacy you should be aware of called a red herring. The whole upbringing thing was a asside. I added my experiences ,anidotal I know, to bolster why I believe it to be true. It was not a straw man, A straw man forces you to take a repugnant posistion that sounds bad. If it was somehow a straw man it was accidental.
You haven't noticed the pattern yet? He repeatedly ignores your strongest points and quotes, dwells on, and nitpicks each and every aside to make the discussion as tedious and nerve-wracking as possible. Just ignore when he does that.
-
"She" I am working on my second divorce. I should have noticed the argument style several posts back.
-
Mr. Voice are you going to refute any of my points?
Hehe. No, he's not.
You haven't noticed the pattern yet? He repeatedly ignores your strongest points and quotes, dwells on, and nitpicks each and every aside to make the discussion as tedious and nerve-wracking as possible. Just ignore when he does that.
Hehe, but you cannot support that view by reviewing the thread.
-
Ha, you are a chick. I was starting to wonder.
Another false claim. I tire of your nonsense.
I guess it should not be surprising that the activity level on this board is low.
-
I went back and corrected my posts. The traffic has improved a lot lately, probably thanks to people like yourself and that fellow with autism. Thank you BTW.
-
I am sure they are both fine fathers, Dale. So when are you going to point out that me and you argued about the spanking thing and you beat me? Amazing how much I have learned on this BBS. Still find your gay porn annoying but luv ya anyway. :)
I had honestly forgotten. I'm just glad you feel differently now. I'm especially happy for your kids. :)
-
I went back and corrected my posts. The traffic has improved a lot lately, probably thanks to people like yourself and that fellow with autism. Thank you BTW.
Is this directed toward myself ?
If so, what corrections did you make ?
I can tell you I would defensively commit [something] against anyone that called me Miss to my face.
-
Your married? How the hell should I know that. I meant no offense.
-
How the hell should I know that.
I am saying if you DON'T KNOW - how do you know what correction is needed ?
Is the Mr/ Miz the only corrections ? If so, all is moot (insubstantial).
-
Fine I'll quite trying to guess.
-
Fine I'll quite trying to guess.
Good. A free society should judge on acts, not gender.
-
FYI note to self:
Further discussion on this topic within this other thread --
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/liberty-lovers- (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/general/liberty-lovers-)!!!!-the-idea-of-the-state-is-not-your-enemy/