 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of ReasonableVoice
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
91
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 30, 2014, 10:05:01 AM »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.
92
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 29, 2014, 05:56:24 PM »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.
93
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 28, 2014, 06:54:33 PM »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 ?
94
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 28, 2014, 09:17:00 AM »
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 ?
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 ?
95
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 27, 2014, 06:01:11 PM »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)
96
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 27, 2014, 10:15:47 AM »
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.
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.
97
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 26, 2014, 09:50:53 PM »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.
98
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 26, 2014, 08:40:17 PM »
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
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
99
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 25, 2014, 05:46:34 PM »
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.
"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.
100
General / Re: The Most Non-Liberty Oriented Position I Hold
« on: January 25, 2014, 04:18:08 PM »
Tell us what you would actually like to see become a law.
Hmmm . . .
How about,
Congress shall pass no law . . . . . . . ( ok, period ).
Congress can still try to amend the constitution, but that takes a 3/4 of the States own legislatures to agree.
Hmmm . . .
How about,
Congress shall pass no law . . . . . . . ( ok, period ).
Congress can still try to amend the constitution, but that takes a 3/4 of the States own legislatures to agree.
101
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 25, 2014, 04:08:27 PM »
#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.
#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.
102
General / Re: THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« on: January 25, 2014, 12:58:58 PM »
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)
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)
103
General / THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
« 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 : ???
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 : ???
104
General / TOPIC: NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE : Violence
« on: September 20, 2013, 02:22:32 PM »
While the hypothetical assertions within this post may or may not be actual scenarios,
please accept them as true for purposes of discussion as the logic should be able to apply to
a wide range of scenarios.
On to the topic . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPIC: NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE : Violence
Violence, not used to make whole, but simply used to only stop violence of aggression.
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
violence employed defensively can be used to stop offensive violence, that is, to stop violence of aggression ?
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
violence employed defensively can be used to stop offensive violence, that is, to stop violence of aggression
REGARDLESS of whether the violence is overt or covert ?
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
violence may (or should?) be employed in defense of yourself or another ?
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
deadly violence may be used against deadly violence of aggression ?
Is an "eminent deadly threat" considered "violence of aggression" ?
If not, why not ?
Is personal common sense or personal best judgment satisfactory to rely upon for determining an eminent threat ?
If not, why not ?
Overt violence of aggression :
If one individual had been directly killing others,
and that individual stated the killing by that individual would continue,
would that constitute an eminent threat ?
If not, why not ?
Covert violence of aggression :
If one individual had funded a plan to use vaccines to kill and injure others,
and others were being killed and injured by vaccines,
and the individual stated more funding of the plan would continue,
would that constitute an eminent threat ?
If not, why not ?
PS:
I love that BBS (bulletin board system) is referenced for this forum as the bbs concept was the most widespread mainstay of shared content on the internet . . . in the early days of the internet.
And the Terms of Use for this forum is among the best liberty-minded Terms of Use I have seen. Thumbs up.
please accept them as true for purposes of discussion as the logic should be able to apply to
a wide range of scenarios.
On to the topic . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPIC: NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE : Violence
Violence, not used to make whole, but simply used to only stop violence of aggression.
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
violence employed defensively can be used to stop offensive violence, that is, to stop violence of aggression ?
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
violence employed defensively can be used to stop offensive violence, that is, to stop violence of aggression
REGARDLESS of whether the violence is overt or covert ?
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
violence may (or should?) be employed in defense of yourself or another ?
Is it acceptable under the non-aggression principle that
deadly violence may be used against deadly violence of aggression ?
Is an "eminent deadly threat" considered "violence of aggression" ?
If not, why not ?
Is personal common sense or personal best judgment satisfactory to rely upon for determining an eminent threat ?
If not, why not ?
Overt violence of aggression :
If one individual had been directly killing others,
and that individual stated the killing by that individual would continue,
would that constitute an eminent threat ?
If not, why not ?
Covert violence of aggression :
If one individual had funded a plan to use vaccines to kill and injure others,
and others were being killed and injured by vaccines,
and the individual stated more funding of the plan would continue,
would that constitute an eminent threat ?
If not, why not ?
PS:
I love that BBS (bulletin board system) is referenced for this forum as the bbs concept was the most widespread mainstay of shared content on the internet . . . in the early days of the internet.
And the Terms of Use for this forum is among the best liberty-minded Terms of Use I have seen. Thumbs up.