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
| | |-+  THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST  (Read 14883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2014, 10:13:09 AM »

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).
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2014, 10:22:18 AM »

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) ?
Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2014, 10:23:51 AM »

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.

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2014, 10:32:31 AM »

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.

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2014, 10:59:49 AM »

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 ?

« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 11:05:38 AM by ReasonableVoice »
Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2014, 04:44:14 PM »

 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?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 12:47:55 PM by alaric89 »
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2014, 07:13:07 PM »

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.
Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2014, 11:56:49 AM »

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 Non-Aggression Principle

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2014, 01:17:03 PM »

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.

Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2014, 03:16:21 PM »

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
« Last Edit: February 01, 2014, 06:21:51 PM by alaric89 »
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2014, 06:07:36 PM »

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.
Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2014, 06:41:45 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 12:51:53 PM by alaric89 »
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2014, 07:27:53 PM »

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 ?
Logged

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2014, 07:55:37 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 12:54:23 PM by alaric89 »
Logged

ReasonableVoice

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2014, 08:32:23 PM »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST

// ]]>

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 32 queries.