Aggression

Yes. "Voluntary Aggression" is a contradiction.

21 (77.8%)

No. Aggression has nothing to do with consent.

6 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[ladyattis]

I'll explain to you, gibson, the definition of objective....Again.


Object: any entity.

Objective: having the quality and/or quality of having properties that are exclusive to the referenced entity.

Example: The rubber ball is 5 ounces.

Analysis:

Object: Rubber ball.

Objective: is 5 ounces.


Another example: X is irrational.

Object: X

Objective: is irrational.

Lets dig deeper here on the part claimed to be objective here, because this one is not easily understood by you. How do we define irrational? Irrational tends to mean in contradiction/opposition/lacking-of reason. So, when someone says X is irrational, they are saying X is not reasoning or thinking reasonably well. Okay, now we got that part down, lets go to the next step, how does anyone know X is irrational? There are a number means to measure it such as observation of the actions taken by X, the responses X gives to questions, and/or the premises X gives for X's behavior(s). Under each possible means of measurement each one is objective since each means of measurement is exclusive for each property measured. More importantly, the measurement itself is invariant. You can't get another scale for irrationality that is radically different from another scale, not even in ordinal cases [example of this would be that metric and imperial are both correct despite having different ordinal scales].

So, gibson, what part of that don't you grasp?

-- Bridget

[gibson042]

So in this regard you are free to be irrational, but if you come onto my property I will turn you and where you stand into a smoking hole.

Don't you get it?  That is the non-aggression principle.  All entities, whether rational or not, are free to do as they please until they aggress.  There is no other condition!

My Webster's definition of subjective ("characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind") contrasts with objective ("having reality independent of the mind [and perceptible by all observers]").  The existence of a chair (or WMDs) is objective.

Nope, not valid since all entities, even mental ones must be observable in some function to be objective. I can observe my thoughts and I can observe your thoughts when you put them down as propositions. Therefore they are objective by default.

By that definition, everything is objective.  Making it useless.  Didn't you try to criticize me for the exact same situation?

An assessment of someone's rationality is subjective, because of the possibility that a person could be rationally acting upon false premises.

That means they are irrational if they operate under false premises, gibson, you seem not to grasp that point. So again, the assessment is still objective. Haven't you figured this out already?

I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another.  Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) observations.

Your claims are pretty much false since you don't define objective correctly.

Take it up with MW.  If you're so hung up on your fruity definition, then suggest a replacement term for me.

[ladyattis]

So in this regard you are free to be irrational, but if you come onto my property I will turn you and where you stand into a smoking hole.

Don't you get it?  That is the non-aggression principle.  All entities, whether rational or not, are free to do as they please until they aggress.  There is no other condition!

Yet again it does not apply to irrational agents. Sorry, try again.

I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another.

Validity in this case is not useful. I need soundness as well, which your assessment does not pass.

Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) observations.

No it would still be the same, but it would exclude irrational agents such as thugs, the immoral, and etc. "Mind and Force are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." - Ayn Rand.

Take it up with MW.  If you're so hung up on your fruity definition, then suggest a replacement term for me.

The fact you take whatever a dictionary tells you proves to me you are unwilling to listen. And as such, this argument is over. Remember, dictionaries don't define the word, they just collect the definitions for them.

-- Bridget

[gibson042]

Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) observations.

No it would still be the same, but it would exclude irrational agents such as thugs, the immoral, and etc. "Mind and Force are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." - Ayn Rand.

Question: how are you to know someone is a "thug" until they aggress?  If you wait until after the fact, then you are using the NAP as I describe it.  If you strike pre-emptively, then you are aggressing, and without an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) basis!

Take it up with MW.  If you're so hung up on your fruity definition, then suggest a replacement term for me.

The fact you take whatever a dictionary tells you proves to me you are unwilling to listen. And as such, this argument is over. Remember, dictionaries don't define the word, they just collect the definitions for them.

I have consistently used the term "objective" to represent the concept of "having reality independent of the mind [and perceptible by all observers]".  That the dictionary includes just such a definition means my use was acceptable.  Yet you have consistently ignored it, pretending instead that the term meant what you wanted it to—even when I explicitly specified otherwise—and repeatedly claiming that my definition is "incorrect".  Its appearance in the dictionary proves you wrong, but your claim ignores the fact that what's important is the concept (bolded above for your elucidation).  Now you are refusing to provide a substitute term; apparently it is so damaging to your worldview that you have to ignore it.

You're right about one thing, though: this argument is over.

[ladyattis]

Question: how are you to know someone is a "thug" until they aggress?  If you wait until after the fact, then you are using the NAP as I describe it.  If you strike pre-emptively, then you are aggressing, and without an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) basis!

Not if the person has a reputation. Or if the person is in the act of violence. In either case, the person gets no chance to try with me. And the definition of objective you use is faulty, I explained that before to you, but you seem to ignore this.

I have consistently used the term "objective" to represent the concept of "having reality independent of the mind [and perceptible by all observers]".  That the dictionary includes just such a definition means my use was acceptable.

No it wasn't, it was the wrong definition for objective.

Yet you have consistently ignored it, pretending instead that the term meant what you wanted it to—even when I explicitly specified otherwise—and repeatedly claiming that my definition is "incorrect".  Its appearance in the dictionary proves you wrong, but your claim ignores the fact that what's important is the concept (bolded above for your elucidation).  Now you are refusing to provide a substitute term; apparently it is so damaging to your worldview that you have to ignore it.

Wrong again, by the fact that every definition is up for debate, period and end of story. In this case, the definition of objective as you use it is faulty because it implies that mental states are not objects in themselves.

So, again, I made a post about this that was independent of the original argument, which pointed out clearly that the definition of OBJECTIVE is not something outside the mind rather it is THE STATE OF ENTITIES WHICH CAN BE ISOLATED AND MEASURED. If you cannot grasp this fact, then fuck off. If we use your definition of objective, everything from atoms and molecules, to mental states and sense perception are all subjective, yet the facts are in opposition to this. Pleading to a dictionary at this point is...W-R-O-N-G by virtue of the fact that the given definition produces a CONTRADICTION. Q.FUCKING.E.FUCKING.D. Got it? Or do you need some more intellectual throw down?

-- Bridget served the idiot gibson who thinks everyone's minds are subjective.

[markuzick]

Calling voluntary government "enforcement" would not accurately describe all the legitimate functions of government and, so, would be very misleading.

What other legitimate functions are there? Rule setting? Controlling in general?

If the definition of govern is determined by it's legitimate functions, we need to be clear on those.

There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems  that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.

Why scrap a perfectly good word, just because one of its definitions, while related, is in a form you disapprove of?

Three reasons:

I disagree that the term government is merely a controlling/enforcing entity, I think aggression is implicit in the definition.

It's only implicit in the definition for the illegitimate form, namely, the State.

Most people understand the term government to mean the aggressive entity, not both the voluntary and aggressive ones.

Most people understand the concept of private government, but believe, that in the sphere of political organization, that it refers to the aggressive entity called the State. This is perfectly understandable, as the state is the ubiquitous type of political organization. If there where some true anarchic societies in the world, then people might start making the distinction between voluntary and aggressive governments, but how can we expect this to happen when the State is universally seen as the paradigm for political organization? We are, in effect, enslaved by a prejudicial misconception that is built into our common use of language. A society needs to be governed or it will collapse into chaos. This is why the public will never accept anarchy, until they understand the possibility and the virtue of voluntary government as a political (societal) organization.

By using the term voluntary government, most people will think you mean any government that lets you leave.

Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?

[Taors]

Your avatar is pretty, Keti.

[Zhwazi]

Thanks. It took a little while in flash.

[MobileDigit]

There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.

How are you distinguishing a legitimate function of government from an illegitimate one?

Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?

They mean a government that lets you leave it's jurisdiction, not one that you can decide not to pay and still keep your property.

[markuzick]

There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.

How are you distinguishing a legitimate function of government from an illegitimate one?

Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitamate.

Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?

They mean a government that lets you leave it's jurisdiction, not one that you can decide not to pay and still keep your property.

That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.

Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.

[MobileDigit]

Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitamate.

But how did you determine it was a function of government?
I want to understand your rationale for assigning particular functions to the definition of govern.

That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.
Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.

They believe that the people have chosen to have a government, and thus it has a valid claim to your wealth, unless you are not using any services it provides.

[markuzick]

Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitimate.

But how did you determine it was a function of government?
I want to understand your rationale for assigning particular functions to the definition of govern.

All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments. Those organizations whose functions are of the type that are conventionally thought of as being the exclusive purview of the State are the ones that, until this artificial distinction is dismissed as an irrational prejudice, will need the preface voluntary when referring to them as governments.

That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.
Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.

They believe that the people have chosen to have a government, and thus it has a valid claim to your wealth, unless you are not using any services it provides.

They, especially, need to be taught what the word voluntary means as well as the moral necessity for human interaction to be on a consensual (voluntary) basis.

[MobileDigit]

All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments.

But why are you defining them to be governments?

[markuzick]

All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments.

But why are you defining them to be governments?

That's the general definition."Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." The political definition is but a specific instance of this more general definition.

[markuzick]

To be honest, I don't agree that competition is aggression. Doing your best for yourself has no aggression involved. And the competition is the result of the pursuit is compared between more than one person. If you were the only person making Gnub-Gnubs, and you did them the best quality as possible, are you in competition? No.

I don't either.  Aggression mixes with intelligence, resourcefulness, and creativity in a winner; lack of aggression, however, most certainly is an earmark of a loser.  Again, I dispute a nuclear or superlative definition of aggression, so, if you must, substitute my use of aggression with aggressiveness.  To do the best for yourself you must be aggressive, unless you consider sitting on the couch collecting welfare as the best you can do for yourself.

[I'm sorry that I'm coming late to this, but I was involved in a different discussion on this same thread.]

You are confusing the word aggression with the word competition.

Edit: Oops, I see that was addressed in the next post.