Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's so special about aggression?

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:18:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So many people believe in the NAP as the holy rule. Here's a thought experiment.

Let's say a rich billionaire really wants a person dead. So, the rich man decides to pay off anybody who refuses to serve this person. Of course, in a "free" society, businesses can refuse to offer his or her services to a person. Naturally, the rich billionaire can offer more money to these people then the man he wants dead, so they agree not to serve this man in order to make more money.

So this man, who works for his money is unable to find a grocery store or restaurant that is willing to serve him. As a result, the man starves.

Now the rich billionaire followed the NAP. He did not use fraud, coercion, or force. The businesses that refused to serve this man followed the NAP. They have the right to refuse service and the right to property.

However, this man, who worked for his money, is dead! How is this justifiable under the NAP, yet If this man was to "steal" by taking a loaf of bread, and even giving the normal price to the cashier, he is the bad guy, disobeying the NAP?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 3:18:54 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So many people believe in the NAP as the holy rule. Here's a thought experiment.

Let's say a rich billionaire really wants a person dead. So, the rich man decides to pay off anybody who refuses to serve this person. Of course, in a "free" society, businesses can refuse to offer his or her services to a person. Naturally, the rich billionaire can offer more money to these people then the man he wants dead, so they agree not to serve this man in order to make more money.

So this man, who works for his money is unable to find a grocery store or restaurant that is willing to serve him. As a result, the man starves.

Now the rich billionaire followed the NAP. He did not use fraud, coercion, or force. The businesses that refused to serve this man followed the NAP. They have the right to refuse service and the right to property.

However, this man, who worked for his money, is dead! How is this justifiable under the NAP, yet If this man was to "steal" by taking a loaf of bread, and even giving the normal price to the cashier, he is the bad guy, disobeying the NAP?

noone gave an argument for the NAP is the End-all be all of ethics in the first thread..

do you think they'll give one here?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:57:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Silly anarchists and their anti-anarchistic beliefs.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 3:59:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In a situation like this though, I'd think the man who starved to death to be retarded.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 4:56:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
how the balls did anyone, billionaire or no, pay off that many people, and nature too, enough that for none of them could he be outbid by the dude?

How did none of them decide they didn't want their money that way? (In a world in which that many people behave that way, it doesn't matter your political system, that guy is dead as the same people will be paid off far more easily as judges).

How did he pay off nature itself, making it impossible for the guy to live off the land? :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:06:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 4:56:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
how the balls did anyone, billionaire or no, pay off that many people, and nature too, enough that for none of them could he be outbid by the dude?

Nature can be bought just like any other product. You think that in a world with 100% property rights that nobody would buy nature? You own land right? Why not buy nature. It has value right?

How did none of them decide they didn't want their money that way? (In a world in which that many people behave that way, it doesn't matter your political system, that guy is dead as the same people will be paid off far more easily as judges).

It was more of a thought experiment then based on reality. The point is that through people obeying the NAP, an act that is equivalent to basically murder can result.

Of course, the world would have to be filled with sociopath. However, it could be a world filled with sociopath that believe in the Non-Agression Principle. The judges might not take the money, since they believe it would be a violation of the NAP, but still take the money from the businessmen since it wouldn't be violationing the NAP.

Also a company that did not engage in activity that did not maximize profits would be in huge violation of contracts between shareholders. A private citizen can do that, but a contract that states that a person can only use this money as a way to generate more money cannot use that person's money to help others.

How did he pay off nature itself, making it impossible for the guy to live off the land? :)

As I stated, in a world with 100% property rights, people will buy nature. It has a value greater than 0.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:13:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:06:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:56:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
how the balls did anyone, billionaire or no, pay off that many people, and nature too, enough that for none of them could he be outbid by the dude?

Nature can be bought just like any other product.
You can't buy something unless it has an owner, otherwise you mix your labor with it to acquire it.

How did none of them decide they didn't want their money that way? (In a world in which that many people behave that way, it doesn't matter your political system, that guy is dead as the same people will be paid off far more easily as judges).

It was more of a thought experiment then based on reality.
NAP OTOH is a principle for reality

Of course, the world would have to be filled with sociopath. However, it could be a world filled with sociopath that believe in the Non-Agression Principle. The judges might not take the money, since they believe it would be a violation of the NAP, but still take the money from the businessmen since it wouldn't be violationing the NAP.
In a world filled with people who believe in the NAP, the NAP will be followed, what of it?


Also a company that did not engage in activity that did not maximize profits would be in huge violation of contracts between shareholders.
So corporate codes of ethics always violate all corporate contracts?

A private citizen can do that
Well there you go
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:24:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:13:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:06:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:56:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
how the balls did anyone, billionaire or no, pay off that many people, and nature too, enough that for none of them could he be outbid by the dude?

Nature can be bought just like any other product.
You can't buy something unless it has an owner, otherwise you mix your labor with it to acquire it.


What does that even mean to mix your labor to acquire it? What constitutes as labor? Also, if nobody owns nature how do you stop others from violating "its" property rights?


How did none of them decide they didn't want their money that way? (In a world in which that many people behave that way, it doesn't matter your political system, that guy is dead as the same people will be paid off far more easily as judges).

It was more of a thought experiment then based on reality.
NAP OTOH is a principle for reality

Based on what reality? What country follows the principle completely? Who follows this principle completely?

In a world filled with people who believe in the NAP, the NAP will be followed, what of it?

Then my scenario can adequately occur assuming that the only thing people care about is money and the NAP.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:13:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:06:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:56:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
how the balls did anyone, billionaire or no, pay off that many people, and nature too, enough that for none of them could he be outbid by the dude?

Nature can be bought just like any other product.
You can't buy something unless it has an owner, otherwise you mix your labor with it to acquire it.


What does that even mean to mix your labor to acquire it? What constitutes as labor?
If I want a farm, I have to plant seeds, if I want a mine, I have to dig it, if I want a house, I have to chop down trees and put it together.

Also, if nobody owns nature how do you stop others from violating "its" property rights?
how would they do that?

Based on what reality? What country follows the principle completely? Who follows this principle completely?
It's a PRESCRIPTION for reality. Not a description like the principle of gravitation.



In a world filled with people who believe in the NAP, the NAP will be followed, what of it?

Then my scenario can adequately occur assuming that the only thing people care about is money and the NAP.
You're still forgetting the part about how the balls he pays off the whole population-- paying each individual more than the guy can pay any one individual.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:47:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:28:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:13:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:06:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 4:56:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
how the balls did anyone, billionaire or no, pay off that many people, and nature too, enough that for none of them could he be outbid by the dude?

Nature can be bought just like any other product.
You can't buy something unless it has an owner, otherwise you mix your labor with it to acquire it.


What does that even mean to mix your labor to acquire it? What constitutes as labor?
If I want a farm, I have to plant seeds, if I want a mine, I have to dig it, if I want a house, I have to chop down trees and put it together.

How much value must you actually invest into you actually make it your property? If I make a pretty sh!tty house, does it still have vale. What if i make something that has no value to anybody besides myself? Have I mixed labor and land enough?

The value of the resources can be greater than the value of the labor. Therefore, a person can have the incentive to do a sh!tty job, but do the job just to obtain the land.

Also based on your standards, over logging or polluting the air and water is alright. Individuals can't sue because they don't own the air or water.

Also, if nobody owns nature how do you stop others from violating "its" property rights?
how would they do that?

Based on what reality? What country follows the principle completely? Who follows this principle completely?
It's a PRESCRIPTION for reality. Not a description like the principle of gravitation.

Yet how is your PRESCRIPTION for reality any different then my thought expirement? Both are impossible




In a world filled with people who believe in the NAP, the NAP will be followed, what of it?

Then my scenario can adequately occur assuming that the only thing people care about is money and the NAP.
You're still forgetting the part about how the balls he pays off the whole population-- paying each individual more than the guy can pay any one individual.

He doesn't have to pay every individual, he just has to guarantee that he can pay off the business that he goes. For example, he doesn't pay every business. He just says "If customer X goes to your store, then you get Y sums of money if you don't serve him."
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 5:47:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:28:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I want a farm, I have to plant seeds, if I want a mine, I have to dig it, if I want a house, I have to chop down trees and put it together.

You don't own property, do you?
President of DDO
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:06:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If nobody in the society is willing to ignore the rich billionaire and give the man food and shelter, then the man really never stood a chance in this society anyway, regardless of the political structure.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 5:47:16 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/13/2011 5:28:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I want a farm, I have to plant seeds, if I want a mine, I have to dig it, if I want a house, I have to chop down trees and put it together.

You don't own property, do you?
We're discussing original acquisition, not purchase.I don't own real estate but that's irrelevant.

How much value must you actually invest into you actually make it your property? If I make a pretty sh!tty house, does it still have vale.
Yes, but it'll be harder for someone to screw that value up and thus give you standing to sue them :P.

What if i make something that has no value to anybody besides myself?
That doesn't have much of an effect.

The value of the resources can be greater than the value of the labor.
Without humans nature has no value.

Also based on your standards, over logging or polluting the air and water is alright. Individuals can't sue because they don't own the air or water.
Individuals breath everyday, acquiring as property a continued stream of atmosphere to their lungs, much like broadcasters acquire a piece of broadcast spectrum.

Yet how is your PRESCRIPTION for reality any different then my thought expirement? Both are impossible
How is the former impossible?

He doesn't have to pay every individual, he just has to guarantee that he can pay off the business that he goes. For example, he doesn't pay every business. He just says "If customer X goes to your store, then you get Y sums of money if you don't serve him."
And the customer will go to many many businesses until his food stocks are depleted. That's a helluva lot of money to pay in a world where apparently no one cares about anything but money and the NAP.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:13:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Without humans, nature has no value"

Value is relative, not subjective. This statement is false.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:13:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:06:17 PM, mongeese wrote:
If nobody in the society is willing to ignore the rich billionaire and give the man food and shelter, then the man really never stood a chance in this society anyway, regardless of the political structure.

How do you figure? People are only doing what's in their rational self-interest here; in this case, the most profitable (choosing to make more money from ignoring the man and appeasing the billionaire). You're implying that society ought to have other values - and they might - but profit might be the utmost value for them. It also doesn't address the OP's question about the NAP.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:29:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:10:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We're discussing original acquisition, not purchase.I don't own real estate but that's irrelevant.

I dunno about your conversation with darkkermit; I didn't read it. I skimmed this thread. You don't own any property, and obviously in a world based on property rights every centimeter of land would be owned by somebody. Therefore saying you can simply mix your labor on land and have something be yours is not really realistic.

Aside from the fact that you would not live very long if not provided for by your parents/strangers as a parasitic infant/child, suppose as a starving teenager you approached a land-owner and offered to farm their land if you could have the food you grew. The owner might say you can have only 1/1000th of what you farmed. Maybe you'll get it and maybe you won't. Even if you did, this just demonstrates how a perpetual under-class is established in this type of society that seemingly mimics feudalism in a way.

If you didn't get it, I suppose you would have to approach a capitalist court to say your contract with the owner has been violated. Of course considering the owner clearly has more money (power and influence), the court might not rule in your favor. Then what? I suppose this is where you would talk about how the court would be seen a illegitimate so people wouldn't seek to use it again, etc., and I don't really wanna get into that redundant conversation because I already know what you will say and I feel too busy atm to type out the predictable response.

However the ultimate point would be this: you see today's government officials (politicians) as having an incentive to do what's in their best interest regardless of whether or not it's moral. I think the same incentive exists in a purely capitalistic society. I see no difference. A jury could be bribed now; a jury could be bribed then. I think dark's question is a legitimate one.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:42:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:29:27 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/13/2011 6:10:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We're discussing original acquisition, not purchase.I don't own real estate but that's irrelevant.

I dunno about your conversation with darkkermit; I didn't read it. I skimmed this thread. You don't own any property, and obviously in a world based on property rights every centimeter of land would be owned by somebody.
That's not at all obvious.

Aside from the fact that you would not live very long if not provided for by your parents/strangers as a parasitic infant/child
If I never grew to be a rational being I'd never no the difference. :P

suppose as a starving teenager you approached a land-owner and offered to farm their land if you could have the food you grew. The owner might say you can have only 1/1000th of what you farmed.
Assuming there is a high chance of being such a creature, that's a significant labor market for employers to compete over.

If you didn't get it, I suppose you would have to approach a capitalist court to say your contract with the owner has been violated. Of course considering the owner clearly has more money (power and influence), the court might not rule in your favor.
Courts that operate that way have abandoned libertarian rules, and are to be treated by a libertarian like they would, say, the courts today.

Then what? I suppose this is where you would talk about how the court would be seen a illegitimate so people wouldn't seek to use it again, etc., and I don't really wanna get into that redundant conversation because I already know what you will say and I feel too busy atm to type out the predictable response.
That's how all ideologies work, if a government breaks their rules it won't implement their rules ipso facto.


However the ultimate point would be this: you see today's government officials (politicians) as having an incentive to do what's in their best interest regardless of whether or not it's moral. I think the same incentive exists in a purely capitalistic society. I see no difference. A jury could be bribed now; a jury could be bribed then.
Wait, are you talking about politicians or juries? I'm confused.

Government officials in a capitalist society have the incentive of offering services worth the user feels of everyone. Money does not operate on a binary basis, more money is always better. Votes, on the other hand, are binary-- worthless after 50%+1.

Since you'll get more user fees and fewer revolts offering a fair deal than being corrupt, and since the only reason you've convinced people your government is legitimate at all would be invalidated by being corrupt... you might get corrupt individual officials (who the owners of the government would have an incentive to kill), you get those in any system, but you don't have the institutional corruption of a democracy, the institutional disregard for minorities, etc. It's a minority of people who are gay, yet even in states where the govt refuses gays marriage the market is happy to provide them with porn, because even minorities' dollars' count.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 6:54:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:10:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


How much value must you actually invest into you actually make it your property? If I make a pretty sh!tty house, does it still have vale.
Yes, but it'll be harder for someone to screw that value up and thus give you standing to sue them :P.

The value of the house is irrelevant. The value of the land is. I can say I mixed land-labor and state it has "value". The labor isn't valuable though, but it sells because the land is.

What if i make something that has no value to anybody besides myself?
That doesn't have much of an effect.

So again, as I stated earlier, who is say If a person buys the house because of the land or the house? Natural resources have value too, just like land. To deny that is almost as absurd as socialist who use the "labor theory of value".

The value of the resources can be greater than the value of the labor.
Without humans nature has no value.

Doesn't address the original issue, and false since obviously animals can value nature. Are you saying that a human will not be willing to pay for nature unless he or she does work on it. That's plainly false and is about as bad reasoning as the "labor theory of value".

Also based on your standards, over logging or polluting the air and water is alright. Individuals can't sue because they don't own the air or water.
Individuals breath everyday, acquiring as property a continued stream of atmosphere to their lungs, much like broadcasters acquire a piece of broadcast spectrum.

But the individual didn't provide any value to it. You said that labor that has no value "does not have much of an effect". Well your breathing gives me no value.

Yet how is your PRESCRIPTION for reality any different then my thought expirement? Both are impossible
How is the former impossible?

Because humans aren't programs that will follow the NAP. Just like in my example humans aren't programs that will only follow the root that is most profitable.

And the customer will go to many many businesses until his food stocks are depleted. That's a helluva lot of money to pay in a world where apparently no one cares about anything but money and the NAP.

Not really. If the customer can only afford to pay let's say $50 a day, the billionaire will double that and a person can travel to 500 stores a day that's $50,000. Let's say it takes about a week to kill a person. That's $250,00. $250,000 is pocket change to billionaires.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 7:10:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The NAP is not practical at all. Contracts are meaningless. Law enforcement is the only way to keep things in order. What laws a community/nation decides to enforce and why it is enforcing those laws, that's what needs to be addressed in the system and redesigned.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 7:32:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:13:48 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/13/2011 6:06:17 PM, mongeese wrote:
If nobody in the society is willing to ignore the rich billionaire and give the man food and shelter, then the man really never stood a chance in this society anyway, regardless of the political structure.

How do you figure? People are only doing what's in their rational self-interest here; in this case, the most profitable (choosing to make more money from ignoring the man and appeasing the billionaire). You're implying that society ought to have other values - and they might - but profit might be the utmost value for them. It also doesn't address the OP's question about the NAP.

If profit is their utmost value, and they're willing to sell any other morals they have for profit, those morals aren't strong at all. Such a society would never properly adopt any sort of communism, and if they use a justice system, then the billionaire could kill the man and bribe the judge more easily than the entire world.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 7:43:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 7:10:22 PM, Tiel wrote:
The NAP is not practical at all. Contracts are meaningless. Law enforcement is the only way to keep things in order. What laws a community/nation decides to enforce and why it is enforcing those laws, that's what needs to be addressed in the system and redesigned.

Many supports of the NAP are also minarchist libertarians. They believe the NAP is a correct moral guideline but sometimes force is needed to enforce it. Supporting the NAP does not necessitate anarchism.

Though your analysis is unsubstantiated. The NAP and security enforcement are not two diametrically opposed concepts. The NAP might be a moral guideline for one's own personal behavior and a security enforcement agency(government, PDA, etc.) is in charge of carrying out the actual protection of one from others.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 7:51:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 7:43:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:10:22 PM, Tiel wrote:
The NAP is not practical at all. Contracts are meaningless. Law enforcement is the only way to keep things in order. What laws a community/nation decides to enforce and why it is enforcing those laws, that's what needs to be addressed in the system and redesigned.

Many supports of the NAP are also minarchist libertarians. They believe the NAP is a correct moral guideline but sometimes force is needed to enforce it. Supporting the NAP does not necessitate anarchism.

Though your analysis is unsubstantiated. The NAP and security enforcement are not two diametrically opposed concepts. The NAP might be a moral guideline for one's own personal behavior and a security enforcement agency(government, PDA, etc.) is in charge of carrying out the actual protection of one from others.

So the NAP being national Law and the enforcement being carried out by a central power? Sounds like a decent system. I am a supporter of Minarchy. It makes much more sense that Anarchy. Central Law and Central Law enforcement/protection are needed. The details are what needs to be designed correctly.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 8:53:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 7:51:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:43:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:10:22 PM, Tiel wrote:
The NAP is not practical at all. Contracts are meaningless. Law enforcement is the only way to keep things in order. What laws a community/nation decides to enforce and why it is enforcing those laws, that's what needs to be addressed in the system and redesigned.

Many supports of the NAP are also minarchist libertarians. They believe the NAP is a correct moral guideline but sometimes force is needed to enforce it. Supporting the NAP does not necessitate anarchism.

Though your analysis is unsubstantiated. The NAP and security enforcement are not two diametrically opposed concepts. The NAP might be a moral guideline for one's own personal behavior and a security enforcement agency(government, PDA, etc.) is in charge of carrying out the actual protection of one from others.

So the NAP being national Law and the enforcement being carried out by a central power? Sounds like a decent system. I am a supporter of Minarchy. It makes much more sense that Anarchy. Central Law and Central Law enforcement/protection are needed. The details are what needs to be designed correctly.

The NAP is not minarchy or anarchy, but a general moral principle. Some think it requires a central governmental authority to be enforced, some do not. I personally place myself firmly with the latter, but it does not specifically advocate any form of governing or lack thereof just as utilitarian or Kantian ethics does not necessarily lay out a political system.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 9:31:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:54:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/13/2011 6:10:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


How much value must you actually invest into you actually make it your property? If I make a pretty sh!tty house, does it still have vale.
Yes, but it'll be harder for someone to screw that value up and thus give you standing to sue them :P.

The value of the house is irrelevant. The value of the land is. I can say I mixed land-labor and state it has "value". The labor isn't valuable though, but it sells because the land is.

What if i make something that has no value to anybody besides myself?
That doesn't have much of an effect.

So again, as I stated earlier, who is say If a person buys the house because of the land or the house? Natural resources have value too, just like land. To deny that is almost as absurd as socialist who use the "labor theory of value".

The value of the resources can be greater than the value of the labor.
Without humans nature has no value.

Doesn't address the original issue, and false since obviously animals can value nature. Are you saying that a human will not be willing to pay for nature unless he or she does work on it. That's plainly false and is about as bad reasoning as the "labor theory of value".

Also based on your standards, over logging or polluting the air and water is alright. Individuals can't sue because they don't own the air or water.
Individuals breath everyday, acquiring as property a continued stream of atmosphere to their lungs, much like broadcasters acquire a piece of broadcast spectrum.

But the individual didn't provide any value to it. You said that labor that has no value "does not have much of an effect". Well your breathing gives me no value.

Yet how is your PRESCRIPTION for reality any different then my thought expirement? Both are impossible
How is the former impossible?

Because humans aren't programs that will follow the NAP. Just like in my example humans aren't programs that will only follow the root that is most profitable.


And the customer will go to many many businesses until his food stocks are depleted. That's a helluva lot of money to pay in a world where apparently no one cares about anything but money and the NAP.

Not really. If the customer can only afford to pay let's say $50 a day, the billionaire will double that and a person can travel to 500 stores a day that's $50,000. Let's say it takes about a week to kill a person. That's $250,00. $250,000 is pocket change to billionaires.
They (unlike the billionaire) don't have to sustain their payment rate. How would they eat at all if they only had a savings of 50 dollars?
250,000 sounds unusual in a world where you've posited no one cares about anything but money and the NAP (except, apparently, the billionaire)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2011 11:56:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 8:53:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:

The NAP is not minarchy or anarchy, but a general moral principle. Some think it requires a central governmental authority to be enforced, some do not. I personally place myself firmly with the latter, but it does not specifically advocate any form of governing or lack thereof just as utilitarian or Kantian ethics does not necessarily lay out a political system.

Is this to be taken to mean you don't care what socio-political style of governing puts it in place, as long as this is the whole of it? Do you simply not concern yourself with the way in which it might be enforced (or more to the point - not enforced)?

Some organizing styles stress equal protection from one another and others stress equal protection from the government (though most folks would like to be maximally protected from both as much as that is possible). I think general consensus it that people are more protected overall if the balance favors government. But as we know there is a strong case to be made that we have too much "protection" and not enough liberty, but the jury on that is still out because there is an equally strong case to be made that strong government is the lesser evil when compared to the potential of people to exploit one another unfairly in the absence of strong government.

The values that in conflict are "happiness for the greatest number" and "individual liberty." Each believes their value trumps the other, and each believes their value is more accommodating to the goals of its opponent than the opponent is to their ideal.
andrea01
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 2:51:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nothing.. but i wanna say people must have control on their aggression.. Because this feeling always bring disaster for us..
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:06:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 8:53:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:51:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:43:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:10:22 PM, Tiel wrote:
The NAP is not practical at all. Contracts are meaningless. Law enforcement is the only way to keep things in order. What laws a community/nation decides to enforce and why it is enforcing those laws, that's what needs to be addressed in the system and redesigned.

Many supports of the NAP are also minarchist libertarians. They believe the NAP is a correct moral guideline but sometimes force is needed to enforce it. Supporting the NAP does not necessitate anarchism.

Though your analysis is unsubstantiated. The NAP and security enforcement are not two diametrically opposed concepts. The NAP might be a moral guideline for one's own personal behavior and a security enforcement agency(government, PDA, etc.) is in charge of carrying out the actual protection of one from others.

So the NAP being national Law and the enforcement being carried out by a central power? Sounds like a decent system. I am a supporter of Minarchy. It makes much more sense that Anarchy. Central Law and Central Law enforcement/protection are needed. The details are what needs to be designed correctly.

The NAP is not minarchy or anarchy, but a general moral principle. Some think it requires a central governmental authority to be enforced, some do not. I personally place myself firmly with the latter, but it does not specifically advocate any form of governing or lack thereof just as utilitarian or Kantian ethics does not necessarily lay out a political system.

I know what the principle is. It could never be kept in order in any practical way, nor any other moral standard, without a central law enforcement enforcing the standard (law). It is only logical to conclude this, unless you are thinking from a point of ignorance.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 6:27:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 6:42:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not at all obvious.

Yes it is. Almost all land is or could be valuable. Even if it were not profitable - say not fertile and not in what is currently considered good real estate - someone would 'take it' and claim it theirs (say by dragging a stick across the dirt and calling that "their labor" on the soil) as they would have nothing to lose in doing so and yet could forever hold onto it and consider it their property, pass it on, sell it later, etc.

Assuming there is a high chance of being such a creature, that's a significant labor market for employers to compete over.

The concept of creating a perpetual under-class is still the same. The rest of my example still applies anyway.

Courts that operate that way have abandoned libertarian rules, and are to be treated by a libertarian like they would, say, the courts today.

How have they abandoned libertarian rules? If they make decisions based on what is most profitable then it seems they are within the lib framework and advocacy. Also I don't understand what you mean in comparing them to courts today.

That's how all ideologies work, if a government breaks their rules it won't implement their rules ipso facto.

???

Wait, are you talking about politicians or juries? I'm confused.

Either-or. The same concept applies.

Government officials in a capitalist society have the incentive of offering services worth the user feels of everyone. Money does not operate on a binary basis, more money is always better. Votes, on the other hand, are binary-- worthless after 50%+1.

No, government officials in a capitalist society have the incentive of offering services to the people who can pay them the most for making the decisions that they do - specifically because more money is always better.

Since you'll get more user fees and fewer revolts offering a fair deal than being corrupt,

So might makes right? Are you saying that less wealthy people, if not satisfied, would/should rely on revolts?

Also it's not true you'll get more user-fees that way, since rich people would be able to pay more.

and since the only reason you've convinced people your government is legitimate at all would be invalidated by being corrupt... you might get corrupt individual officials (who the owners of the government would have an incentive to kill), you get those in any system, but you don't have the institutional corruption of a democracy, the institutional disregard for minorities, etc. It's a minority of people who are gay, yet even in states where the govt refuses gays marriage the market is happy to provide them with porn, because even minorities' dollars' count.

Who are the "owners of the government?"

I'm saying there are in fact problems with democracy but the same or similar problems exist in capitalism. Since capitalism is necessarily based on hierarchies, the the same disregard is shown though generally for the majority rather than the minority (since the wealthy elite tend to be a minority).

If the majority of people vote against gay marriage you might consider that wrong, but if a minority of people pay a politician to prevent gay marriage then you somehow think that's better?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 6:29:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/13/2011 7:32:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
If profit is their utmost value, and they're willing to sell any other morals they have for profit, those morals aren't strong at all. Such a society would never properly adopt any sort of communism, and if they use a justice system, then the billionaire could kill the man and bribe the judge more easily than the entire world.

Wouldn't an objectivist say that the only moral rule worth following is doing what's in one's rational self-interest without infringing on another's right(s)? Therefore it's only your opinion that their other "morals aren't strong at all." They would be abiding by their sole moral criteria. I never said anything about communism.
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 6:32:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:06:14 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/13/2011 8:53:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:51:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:43:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/13/2011 7:10:22 PM, Tiel wrote:
The NAP is not practical at all. Contracts are meaningless. Law enforcement is the only way to keep things in order. What laws a community/nation decides to enforce and why it is enforcing those laws, that's what needs to be addressed in the system and redesigned.

Many supports of the NAP are also minarchist libertarians. They believe the NAP is a correct moral guideline but sometimes force is needed to enforce it. Supporting the NAP does not necessitate anarchism.

Though your analysis is unsubstantiated. The NAP and security enforcement are not two diametrically opposed concepts. The NAP might be a moral guideline for one's own personal behavior and a security enforcement agency(government, PDA, etc.) is in charge of carrying out the actual protection of one from others.

So the NAP being national Law and the enforcement being carried out by a central power? Sounds like a decent system. I am a supporter of Minarchy. It makes much more sense that Anarchy. Central Law and Central Law enforcement/protection are needed. The details are what needs to be designed correctly.

The NAP is not minarchy or anarchy, but a general moral principle. Some think it requires a central governmental authority to be enforced, some do not. I personally place myself firmly with the latter, but it does not specifically advocate any form of governing or lack thereof just as utilitarian or Kantian ethics does not necessarily lay out a political system.

I know what the principle is. It could never be kept in order in any practical way, nor any other moral standard, without a central law enforcement enforcing the standard (law). It is only logical to conclude this, unless you are thinking from a point of ignorance.

Care to actually explain why or just ramble on about the need for central law enforcement?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.