Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Violation of the Non-Aggression Principle

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So I've been looking over the NAP a bit, how different minds have viewed it and what not.

While it is nice to consider a world where everyone lives by this set of codes, if we accepted the ideal worlds for pretty much any political system, nearly all would work. But, hopefully everyone understands that the real world is not so ideal, so it is better to form a political theory that will work in the real world, than one that only works in your mind.

Going into this, people will, sooner or later, violate the NAP. Maybe they get desperate enough and steal some food, or get mad enough and punch their boss in the face. Regardless as to how it will happen, it will happen.

Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.

Is this something that most all NAP followers believe?

Based on the quote, it doesn't seem that there is any stipulation on a statute of limitations. Do NAPer's believe in a SaL?

Nor does it seem that the degree of "re-aggression" or "counter-aggression" (or whatever you want to call it, aggressing against the aggressor) is established, such as if person A punches me in the arm, can I shoot him in the face and kill him, even if I could have likely neutralized the threat without killing him?

These are just some questions that I have regarding this.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 5:53:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
So I've been looking over the NAP a bit, how different minds have viewed it and what not.

While it is nice to consider a world where everyone lives by this set of codes, if we accepted the ideal worlds for pretty much any political system, nearly all would work. But, hopefully everyone understands that the real world is not so ideal, so it is better to form a political theory that will work in the real world, than one that only works in your mind.

Going into this, people will, sooner or later, violate the NAP. Maybe they get desperate enough and steal some food, or get mad enough and punch their boss in the face. Regardless as to how it will happen, it will happen.

Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.

Is this something that most all NAP followers believe?

Based on the quote, it doesn't seem that there is any stipulation on a statute of limitations. Do NAPer's believe in a SaL?

Nor does it seem that the degree of "re-aggression" or "counter-aggression" (or whatever you want to call it, aggressing against the aggressor) is established, such as if person A punches me in the arm, can I shoot him in the face and kill him, even if I could have likely neutralized the threat without killing him?

These are just some questions that I have regarding this.

When faced with aggression, NAP justifies counter-aggression. I debated this with Kenyon and I basically focused on issues where I believe initiating aggression was justified. The extent to which reprisal is allowed is not specified, but I don't view this as a fault because it seems to ask too much of the principle to lay out such an elaborate system claiming the exact extent to which self defense is justified. It would seem thats a whole other issue.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 5:57:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would like to ask what the definition of aggression is. Libertarians seems to act likes it's any use of force.

Suppose that you walk across the street without paying attention and a car is about to hit you. However, someone pulls you out of the way and saves your life.

They have certainly just initiated force against you. You would have chose to kept walking.

Even though they used force on you, it's not aggression or violence, is it? Why? Is it because they had no intention to harm you?

So lets say we now only accept aggression as force with the intent to harm. Now we start to see some libertarian problems. Turns out we just justified forced drug rehab.

So, what does aggression mean to you?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 5:57:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, there can be a few interpretations of the principle. However, it does involve FORCE rather than aggression. So initiating force, even in harmless instances like preventing suicides or accidents becomes suspect. The definition I laid out at the start of the debate focused on the "rights" aspect, but I later brought up another interpretations which was simply "initiating force is universally wrong" or something like that.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.
Kinsella? http://mises.org...

No there is no statute of limitations in principle, although in practice, I'm sure people would just stop pursuing aggressors after a while.

And the degree of retaliation against an aggressor depends on when you're retaliating. In immediate self-defense, there is only a limit if you know that the aggressor poses a less than lethal threat to you--like if you got attacked by an unarmed child. Then you can only retaliate to the extent of the attack. But if there's a threat of lethal aggression, or you don't know what the threat is (for example, there's a burglar in your house, and you don't know whether or not he's armed), then you can use lethal force. Of course, lethal force is only justified until the aggressor is no longer a threat. For example, if you hit a burglar on he head and knocked him unconscious, you can't keep hitting him.

Retaliation in the form of punishment (after the aggression, when you're no longer in danger) is different. See the link above. Basically, aggressors only give up their rights to the extent that they violate the rights of others. So if I steal $1000 from you, you can get the $1000 back from me, and an additional $1000, because I've forfeited my rights to my property to that extent.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:03:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 5:53:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

When faced with aggression, NAP justifies counter-aggression.

The problem is that it is never that clear, the problem is that you do not know, and what do you do when you only suspect.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:04:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
such as if person A punches me in the arm, can I shoot him in the face and kill him, even if I could have likely neutralized the threat without killing him?
Sure.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:04:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:03:45 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:53:32 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

When faced with aggression, NAP justifies counter-aggression.

The problem is that it is never that clear, the problem is that you do not know, and what do you do when you only suspect.

You DONT KNOW when someone just punched you in the face? It's NEVER that clear?
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.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:08:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 5:57:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would like to ask what the definition of aggression is. Libertarians seems to act likes it's any use of force.

Suppose that you walk across the street without paying attention and a car is about to hit you. However, someone pulls you out of the way and saves your life.

They have certainly just initiated force against you. You would have chose to kept walking.

Even though they used force on you, it's not aggression or violence, is it? Why? Is it because they had no intention to harm you?

So lets say we now only accept aggression as force with the intent to harm. Now we start to see some libertarian problems. Turns out we just justified forced drug rehab.

So, what does aggression mean to you?

That situation isn't not aggression because of the person's intentions, but because of the consent of the person being saved. If I'm going to be hit by a car, I'd consent to someone saving me (in my mind, even though I didn't actually say anything). Unless I actually would have rather been hit by the car than saved, it isn't aggression (so, stopping someone who's trying to kill themself would be aggression, although if they changed their mind later and were grateful, no legal action would be taken). Forced drug rehab would be different--the drug user clearly doesn't want it, and can't be said to have consented.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:18:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:08:32 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:57:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would like to ask what the definition of aggression is. Libertarians seems to act likes it's any use of force.

Suppose that you walk across the street without paying attention and a car is about to hit you. However, someone pulls you out of the way and saves your life.

They have certainly just initiated force against you. You would have chose to kept walking.

Even though they used force on you, it's not aggression or violence, is it? Why? Is it because they had no intention to harm you?

So lets say we now only accept aggression as force with the intent to harm. Now we start to see some libertarian problems. Turns out we just justified forced drug rehab.

So, what does aggression mean to you?

That situation isn't not aggression because of the person's intentions, but because of the consent of the person being saved. If I'm going to be hit by a car, I'd consent to someone saving me (in my mind, even though I didn't actually say anything). Unless I actually would have rather been hit by the car than saved, it isn't aggression (so, stopping someone who's trying to kill themself would be aggression, although if they changed their mind later and were grateful, no legal action would be taken). Forced drug rehab would be different--the drug user clearly doesn't want it, and can't be said to have consented.

Totally reminded me of the Incredibles.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:21:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
So I've been looking over the NAP a bit, how different minds have viewed it and what not.

To that tune, note that I conceptualize it as a political principle, rather than as an ethical one. I view it from a contractarian angle, and also from the angle of a principle governing liability. "Your rights are established only insofar that you refrain from aggression against other people. If you employ coercion against others, you're liable for damages/open to retaliation". There appears at first to be a threshold problem with the degree of retaliation acceptable, but I'll resolve those tensions below.

While it is nice to consider a world where everyone lives by this set of codes, if we accepted the ideal worlds for pretty much any political system, nearly all would work. But, hopefully everyone understands that the real world is not so ideal, so it is better to form a political theory that will work in the real world, than one that only works in your mind.

Going into this, people will, sooner or later, violate the NAP. Maybe they get desperate enough and steal some food, or get mad enough and punch their boss in the face. Regardless as to how it will happen, it will happen.

Absolutely.

Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.

Is this something that most all NAP followers believe?

Indeed. The nonaggression principle is only inherently targeted toward initiations of force.

Based on the quote, it doesn't seem that there is any stipulation on a statute of limitations. Do NAPer's believe in a SaL?

It's not provided for in the NAP. It's the difference between meta-ethics and applied ethics, to use a moral analogy. Meta-ethics tells you about fundamentals and starting values, but it doesn't supply a cookie-cutter practical means of getting the principles implemented. There are some societies in which defense/insurance companies might stipulate a statute of limitations to minimize expenditures and liability and such.

Example: Defense Co. could stipulate in the service contract that, based on the damage claim, it might put a resource cap or a time cap (i.e. $500,000/10 yrs) on its efforts to track down/process an aggressor. This arrangement could differ from crime to crime (rape vs petty theft, for example), and could even be stratified for different income levels (i.e. choosing to pay a higher premium qualifies you for an extension of the resource or time cap to $750,000 or 20 yrs).

Of course, this is totally speculative: because societies aren't homogeneous, I can't plan out how AnCap societies would deal with it. The point, actually, is that it won't be planned.

Nor does it seem that the degree of "re-aggression" or "counter-aggression" (or whatever you want to call it, aggressing against the aggressor) is established, such as if person A punches me in the arm, can I shoot him in the face and kill him, even if I could have likely neutralized the threat without killing him?

Yeah, there's also not a threshold inherent in the NAP. Like the statute of limitations, I could probably give you a theoretical proposition for a way of resolving that issue in an AnCap society. The conclusion would be the same, though, that I'm just speculating. It could be, for example, that insurance agencies charge higher premiums for owning weapons, could stipulate massive charges for engaging in post facto vigilante justice rather than using a defense/investigative agency, and stuff like that. I think it would be a pretty good business model, but I don't guarantee that all societies will resolve the problem that way.

These are just some questions that I have regarding this.

Happy to answer.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:27:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:01:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.
Kinsella? http://mises.org...

No there is no statute of limitations in principle, although in practice, I'm sure people would just stop pursuing aggressors after a while.

And the degree of retaliation against an aggressor depends on when you're retaliating. In immediate self-defense, there is only a limit if you know that the aggressor poses a less than lethal threat to you--like if you got attacked by an unarmed child. Then you can only retaliate to the extent of the attack. But if there's a threat of lethal aggression, or you don't know what the threat is (for example, there's a burglar in your house, and you don't know whether or not he's armed), then you can use lethal force. Of course, lethal force is only justified until the aggressor is no longer a threat. For example, if you hit a burglar on he head and knocked him unconscious, you can't keep hitting him.

Could it be argued that, unless an aggressor is butt naked, you can never fully know that they are unarmed, since they could at any point, have gun or knife in their pocket.


Retaliation in the form of punishment (after the aggression, when you're no longer in danger) is different. See the link above. Basically, aggressors only give up their rights to the extent that they violate the rights of others. So if I steal $1000 from you, you can get the $1000 back from me, and an additional $1000, because I've forfeited my rights to my property to that extent.

And what about in non-monetary issues? Like rape? Person A rapes a women and is arrested the next day. He obviously is no longer directly aggressing against her, but his intial aggression cannot be undone, nor does it make much sense to say that justice is that his victim now gets to rape him and call it good.

I'd also like to ask about cases where the victim is killed and so no longer able persue justice (murder). Where do the rights of punishing the criminal fall?

If the victim is a single adult (no wife or kids)? Or what if the victim doesn't have the insurance/protection agency (or whatever you'd like to call it), does the murderer get off free?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:29:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm requesting that someone respond to FREEDO's argument.

At 6/14/2011 5:57:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would like to ask what the definition of aggression is. Libertarians seems to act likes it's any use of force.

Suppose that you walk across the street without paying attention and a car is about to hit you. However, someone pulls you out of the way and saves your life.

They have certainly just initiated force against you. You would have chose to kept walking.

Even though they used force on you, it's not aggression or violence, is it? Why? Is it because they had no intention to harm you?

So lets say we now only accept aggression as force with the intent to harm. Now we start to see some libertarian problems. Turns out we just justified forced drug rehab.

So, what does aggression mean to you?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:41:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:27:14 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:01:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.
Kinsella? http://mises.org...

No there is no statute of limitations in principle, although in practice, I'm sure people would just stop pursuing aggressors after a while.

And the degree of retaliation against an aggressor depends on when you're retaliating. In immediate self-defense, there is only a limit if you know that the aggressor poses a less than lethal threat to you--like if you got attacked by an unarmed child. Then you can only retaliate to the extent of the attack. But if there's a threat of lethal aggression, or you don't know what the threat is (for example, there's a burglar in your house, and you don't know whether or not he's armed), then you can use lethal force. Of course, lethal force is only justified until the aggressor is no longer a threat. For example, if you hit a burglar on he head and knocked him unconscious, you can't keep hitting him.

Could it be argued that, unless an aggressor is butt naked, you can never fully know that they are unarmed, since they could at any point, have gun or knife in their pocket.
Well, even if they were completely naked and unconscious, they could have some sort of alien inside them that will burst out and kill you unless you shoot them in the chest first. I think the best way to deal with this is the standard of 'reasonable doubt.' We can't ever be 100% sure of anything, so juries only have to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. This could work for self-defense too--if you can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the aggressor is no longer a threat to your life (they're unconscious, tied up, surrendered and have their hands on their head, etc), don't kill them.


Retaliation in the form of punishment (after the aggression, when you're no longer in danger) is different. See the link above. Basically, aggressors only give up their rights to the extent that they violate the rights of others. So if I steal $1000 from you, you can get the $1000 back from me, and an additional $1000, because I've forfeited my rights to my property to that extent.

And what about in non-monetary issues? Like rape? Person A rapes a women and is arrested the next day. He obviously is no longer directly aggressing against her, but his intial aggression cannot be undone, nor does it make much sense to say that justice is that his victim now gets to rape him and call it good.
When taking restitution for monetary crimes, one doesn't need to get, say, the actual original $1,000 back--any $1,000 will due, because they're equivalent. With something like rape, you can't unrape the victim, but you can try for equivalent monetary compensation. Obviously, this is impossible to calculate exactly, so courts would just have to try the best they can to come up with a punishment system for crimes like that. This would be similar to the way the common law system was created--there's no 'correct' amount of jail time or whatever for any crime, judges just tried to come up with fair punishments as well as they could.

I'd also like to ask about cases where the victim is killed and so no longer able persue justice (murder). Where do the rights of punishing the criminal fall?
Whoever gets the estate of the victim. They inherit the right to punish the criminal. (unless the victim made their wishes regarding their murderer clear while they were alive. So, if someone was a pacifist, they could put in their will that their murderer is forgiven and should not be punished in their will)

If the victim is a single adult (no wife or kids)?
If no one inherits the victim's estate, then everything he owns becomes unowned property and can be claimed by anyone. This includes his claim against the murderer. Presumably, whoever normally catches murderers would catch this one too, and force him to work to pay restitution to the company itself, rather than the victim.

Or what if the victim doesn't have the insurance/protection agency (or whatever you'd like to call it), does the murderer get off free?
If the family is too poor to afford insurance/protection, then they could sell the right to punish the murderer to someone else, who would pursue them, catch them, and force them to work to pay restitution.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:41:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:29:44 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
I'm requesting that someone respond to FREEDO's argument.

At 6/14/2011 5:57:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I would like to ask what the definition of aggression is. Libertarians seems to act likes it's any use of force.

Suppose that you walk across the street without paying attention and a car is about to hit you. However, someone pulls you out of the way and saves your life.

They have certainly just initiated force against you. You would have chose to kept walking.

Even though they used force on you, it's not aggression or violence, is it? Why? Is it because they had no intention to harm you?

So lets say we now only accept aggression as force with the intent to harm. Now we start to see some libertarian problems. Turns out we just justified forced drug rehab.

So, what does aggression mean to you?

I did on the previous page.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:52:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:41:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:27:14 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:01:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.
Kinsella? http://mises.org...

No there is no statute of limitations in principle, although in practice, I'm sure people would just stop pursuing aggressors after a while.

And the degree of retaliation against an aggressor depends on when you're retaliating. In immediate self-defense, there is only a limit if you know that the aggressor poses a less than lethal threat to you--like if you got attacked by an unarmed child. Then you can only retaliate to the extent of the attack. But if there's a threat of lethal aggression, or you don't know what the threat is (for example, there's a burglar in your house, and you don't know whether or not he's armed), then you can use lethal force. Of course, lethal force is only justified until the aggressor is no longer a threat. For example, if you hit a burglar on he head and knocked him unconscious, you can't keep hitting him.

Could it be argued that, unless an aggressor is butt naked, you can never fully know that they are unarmed, since they could at any point, have gun or knife in their pocket.
Well, even if they were completely naked and unconscious, they could have some sort of alien inside them that will burst out and kill you unless you shoot them in the chest first. I think the best way to deal with this is the standard of 'reasonable doubt.' We can't ever be 100% sure of anything, so juries only have to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. This could work for self-defense too--if you can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the aggressor is no longer a threat to your life (they're unconscious, tied up, surrendered and have their hands on their head, etc), don't kill them.


Retaliation in the form of punishment (after the aggression, when you're no longer in danger) is different. See the link above. Basically, aggressors only give up their rights to the extent that they violate the rights of others. So if I steal $1000 from you, you can get the $1000 back from me, and an additional $1000, because I've forfeited my rights to my property to that extent.

And what about in non-monetary issues? Like rape? Person A rapes a women and is arrested the next day. He obviously is no longer directly aggressing against her, but his intial aggression cannot be undone, nor does it make much sense to say that justice is that his victim now gets to rape him and call it good.
When taking restitution for monetary crimes, one doesn't need to get, say, the actual original $1,000 back--any $1,000 will due, because they're equivalent. With something like rape, you can't unrape the victim, but you can try for equivalent monetary compensation. Obviously, this is impossible to calculate exactly, so courts would just have to try the best they can to come up with a punishment system for crimes like that. This would be similar to the way the common law system was created--there's no 'correct' amount of jail time or whatever for any crime, judges just tried to come up with fair punishments as well as they could.

I can't help but think if a monetary value is placed on something like rape, it will be based upon people's ability to pay. Obviously, any contracting agency is trying to make money, so it has to balance everything out, the demand for their product at a set premium (if their members are targeted too much, customers will leave to others), yet if the compensation rates are too high, too many criminals will not be able to pay and so the company will fail (since they will, assuming it is in the contract) would cover the cost and try to recoup from the criminal.

Putting someone in prison seems counter productive (unless the policy holders are willing to fork over those higher premiums), since prison would be costing money, rather than recouping it.

FYI, questions dropped are those I have no more questions for at the moment.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 6:55:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:21:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
So I've been looking over the NAP a bit, how different minds have viewed it and what not.

To that tune, note that I conceptualize it as a political principle, rather than as an ethical one. I view it from a contractarian angle, and also from the angle of a principle governing liability. "Your rights are established only insofar that you refrain from aggression against other people. If you employ coercion against others, you're liable for damages/open to retaliation". There appears at first to be a threshold problem with the degree of retaliation acceptable, but I'll resolve those tensions below.

While it is nice to consider a world where everyone lives by this set of codes, if we accepted the ideal worlds for pretty much any political system, nearly all would work. But, hopefully everyone understands that the real world is not so ideal, so it is better to form a political theory that will work in the real world, than one that only works in your mind.

Going into this, people will, sooner or later, violate the NAP. Maybe they get desperate enough and steal some food, or get mad enough and punch their boss in the face. Regardless as to how it will happen, it will happen.

Absolutely.

Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.

Is this something that most all NAP followers believe?

Indeed. The nonaggression principle is only inherently targeted toward initiations of force.

Based on the quote, it doesn't seem that there is any stipulation on a statute of limitations. Do NAPer's believe in a SaL?

It's not provided for in the NAP. It's the difference between meta-ethics and applied ethics, to use a moral analogy. Meta-ethics tells you about fundamentals and starting values, but it doesn't supply a cookie-cutter practical means of getting the principles implemented. There are some societies in which defense/insurance companies might stipulate a statute of limitations to minimize expenditures and liability and such.

Example: Defense Co. could stipulate in the service contract that, based on the damage claim, it might put a resource cap or a time cap (i.e. $500,000/10 yrs) on its efforts to track down/process an aggressor. This arrangement could differ from crime to crime (rape vs petty theft, for example), and could even be stratified for different income levels (i.e. choosing to pay a higher premium qualifies you for an extension of the resource or time cap to $750,000 or 20 yrs).

Of course, this is totally speculative: because societies aren't homogeneous, I can't plan out how AnCap societies would deal with it. The point, actually, is that it won't be planned.

Nor does it seem that the degree of "re-aggression" or "counter-aggression" (or whatever you want to call it, aggressing against the aggressor) is established, such as if person A punches me in the arm, can I shoot him in the face and kill him, even if I could have likely neutralized the threat without killing him?

Yeah, there's also not a threshold inherent in the NAP. Like the statute of limitations, I could probably give you a theoretical proposition for a way of resolving that issue in an AnCap society. The conclusion would be the same, though, that I'm just speculating. It could be, for example, that insurance agencies charge higher premiums for owning weapons, could stipulate massive charges for engaging in post facto vigilante justice rather than using a defense/investigative agency, and stuff like that. I think it would be a pretty good business model, but I don't guarantee that all societies will resolve the problem that way.

These are just some questions that I have regarding this.

Happy to answer.

So is it safe to assume that individuals with different views on where the statute of limitations, as well as the degree of counter force or punishing force, are free to disagree with each other, yet all fall under the libertarian NAP title?

Example would be that Rags often shows (and has here) that any degree of force forfeits your right to deny force. As he said, if someoen punches me in the arm, I am free to kill them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 7:03:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:52:07 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:41:43 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:27:14 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:01:41 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.
Kinsella? http://mises.org...

No there is no statute of limitations in principle, although in practice, I'm sure people would just stop pursuing aggressors after a while.

And the degree of retaliation against an aggressor depends on when you're retaliating. In immediate self-defense, there is only a limit if you know that the aggressor poses a less than lethal threat to you--like if you got attacked by an unarmed child. Then you can only retaliate to the extent of the attack. But if there's a threat of lethal aggression, or you don't know what the threat is (for example, there's a burglar in your house, and you don't know whether or not he's armed), then you can use lethal force. Of course, lethal force is only justified until the aggressor is no longer a threat. For example, if you hit a burglar on he head and knocked him unconscious, you can't keep hitting him.

Could it be argued that, unless an aggressor is butt naked, you can never fully know that they are unarmed, since they could at any point, have gun or knife in their pocket.
Well, even if they were completely naked and unconscious, they could have some sort of alien inside them that will burst out and kill you unless you shoot them in the chest first. I think the best way to deal with this is the standard of 'reasonable doubt.' We can't ever be 100% sure of anything, so juries only have to be sure beyond any reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. This could work for self-defense too--if you can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the aggressor is no longer a threat to your life (they're unconscious, tied up, surrendered and have their hands on their head, etc), don't kill them.


Retaliation in the form of punishment (after the aggression, when you're no longer in danger) is different. See the link above. Basically, aggressors only give up their rights to the extent that they violate the rights of others. So if I steal $1000 from you, you can get the $1000 back from me, and an additional $1000, because I've forfeited my rights to my property to that extent.

And what about in non-monetary issues? Like rape? Person A rapes a women and is arrested the next day. He obviously is no longer directly aggressing against her, but his intial aggression cannot be undone, nor does it make much sense to say that justice is that his victim now gets to rape him and call it good.
When taking restitution for monetary crimes, one doesn't need to get, say, the actual original $1,000 back--any $1,000 will due, because they're equivalent. With something like rape, you can't unrape the victim, but you can try for equivalent monetary compensation. Obviously, this is impossible to calculate exactly, so courts would just have to try the best they can to come up with a punishment system for crimes like that. This would be similar to the way the common law system was created--there's no 'correct' amount of jail time or whatever for any crime, judges just tried to come up with fair punishments as well as they could.

I can't help but think if a monetary value is placed on something like rape, it will be based upon people's ability to pay. Obviously, any contracting agency is trying to make money, so it has to balance everything out, the demand for their product at a set premium (if their members are targeted too much, customers will leave to others), yet if the compensation rates are too high, too many criminals will not be able to pay and so the company will fail (since they will, assuming it is in the contract) would cover the cost and try to recoup from the criminal.

Putting someone in prison seems counter productive (unless the policy holders are willing to fork over those higher premiums), since prison would be costing money, rather than recouping it.

FYI, questions dropped are those I have no more questions for at the moment.

Restitution probably would vary by the ability of the criminal to pay. Say we have 2 murderers--one poor, one wealthy. If you murder someone, you forfeit all of your rights, so they'd both lose all of their property and have to do some sort of forced labor for the rest of their lives.

But even though they amount collected would vary, the amount paid to the victims would likely be the same. Protection companies would be sort of like insurance companies--X happens to you, you get Y payment right away (with the money for Y coming from premiums and money collected from criminals). That way, victims wouldn't have to wait for their aggressor to be caught (if he's caught at all), or for money from years of forced labor, and protection companies would have a large incentive to catch criminals.

And yes, prisons would be counter-productive, in their current form. They just suck out money. Forced labor would be different--criminals could be allowed to keep part of their income, to give them incentives to work harder. Different levels of security would be made for different levels of risk--some criminals could even work regular jobs on their own, and pay back the debt with wage garnishments. People would try different things out and do whatever worked. I don't know exactly what it would look like, only that it would be radically different from the current prison system.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 7:13:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:55:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:21:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/14/2011 5:44:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
So I've been looking over the NAP a bit, how different minds have viewed it and what not.

To that tune, note that I conceptualize it as a political principle, rather than as an ethical one. I view it from a contractarian angle, and also from the angle of a principle governing liability. "Your rights are established only insofar that you refrain from aggression against other people. If you employ coercion against others, you're liable for damages/open to retaliation". There appears at first to be a threshold problem with the degree of retaliation acceptable, but I'll resolve those tensions below.

While it is nice to consider a world where everyone lives by this set of codes, if we accepted the ideal worlds for pretty much any political system, nearly all would work. But, hopefully everyone understands that the real world is not so ideal, so it is better to form a political theory that will work in the real world, than one that only works in your mind.

Going into this, people will, sooner or later, violate the NAP. Maybe they get desperate enough and steal some food, or get mad enough and punch their boss in the face. Regardless as to how it will happen, it will happen.

Absolutely.

Now someone said that those you aggress against others, cannot honestly complain against aggressions against them. I'm not sure the exact quote, nor who said it, but I'm sure that most everyone has heard it so it doesn't need the quote, though if it does, I'll dig it up from Mises.

Is this something that most all NAP followers believe?

Indeed. The nonaggression principle is only inherently targeted toward initiations of force.

Based on the quote, it doesn't seem that there is any stipulation on a statute of limitations. Do NAPer's believe in a SaL?

It's not provided for in the NAP. It's the difference between meta-ethics and applied ethics, to use a moral analogy. Meta-ethics tells you about fundamentals and starting values, but it doesn't supply a cookie-cutter practical means of getting the principles implemented. There are some societies in which defense/insurance companies might stipulate a statute of limitations to minimize expenditures and liability and such.

Example: Defense Co. could stipulate in the service contract that, based on the damage claim, it might put a resource cap or a time cap (i.e. $500,000/10 yrs) on its efforts to track down/process an aggressor. This arrangement could differ from crime to crime (rape vs petty theft, for example), and could even be stratified for different income levels (i.e. choosing to pay a higher premium qualifies you for an extension of the resource or time cap to $750,000 or 20 yrs).

Of course, this is totally speculative: because societies aren't homogeneous, I can't plan out how AnCap societies would deal with it. The point, actually, is that it won't be planned.

Nor does it seem that the degree of "re-aggression" or "counter-aggression" (or whatever you want to call it, aggressing against the aggressor) is established, such as if person A punches me in the arm, can I shoot him in the face and kill him, even if I could have likely neutralized the threat without killing him?

Yeah, there's also not a threshold inherent in the NAP. Like the statute of limitations, I could probably give you a theoretical proposition for a way of resolving that issue in an AnCap society. The conclusion would be the same, though, that I'm just speculating. It could be, for example, that insurance agencies charge higher premiums for owning weapons, could stipulate massive charges for engaging in post facto vigilante justice rather than using a defense/investigative agency, and stuff like that. I think it would be a pretty good business model, but I don't guarantee that all societies will resolve the problem that way.

These are just some questions that I have regarding this.

Happy to answer.

So is it safe to assume that individuals with different views on where the statute of limitations, as well as the degree of counter force or punishing force, are free to disagree with each other, yet all fall under the libertarian NAP title?

Yes indeed. As with most things, the most predominant "policy" on retaliatory force and the SoL will be a consequence of competition between different kinds of contracts/"packages" offering different terms.

Example would be that Rags often shows (and has here) that any degree of force forfeits your right to deny force. As he said, if someoen punches me in the arm, I am free to kill them.

Yeah. I doubt that such defense would be "banned" per se, but here's what I think would happen based on my earlier speculation: insurance agencies would make it REALLY expensive to go around playing self-defending vigilante, owning a lot of weapons, etc. Consequently, it would take a massive financial toll on Ragnar to maintain general insurance while ALSO engaging in that sort of lifestyle. Since Ragnar is pretty poor, I imagine, he could choose to go without insurance. If he did, though, I imagine that few people would be willing to deal with him. If he came into my store, however, and I discovered that he wasn't covered by a reputable company, I would be hesitant to do business background, because I would be drawing inferences about his reasons for not having insurance, his potentially shady lifestyle, and stuff like that. Plus, it means I have basically no recourse to collect damages if he decides to walk in, break/steal a bunch of stuff, and walk out. And, given that ALL property would be private in an AnCap society (and the likelihood of smaller communities in an AnCap world). On the other hand, he could choose to keep insurance, in which case he would have to drop his habits to stay in the black. And that's only speaking of insurers.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 7:18:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 7:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If he came into my store, however, and I discovered that he wasn't covered by a reputable company, I would be hesitant to do business with someone of his questionable background, because I would be drawing inferences about his reasons for not having insurance, his potentially shady lifestyle, and stuff like that.

I guess I accidentally highlighted/deleted that part.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 7:24:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course, while people could resort to things like imprisonment and forced labor and such, a voluntary society would likely handle most conflicts with something like this:
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 7:41:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 7:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/14/2011 6:55:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
So is it safe to assume that individuals with different views on where the statute of limitations, as well as the degree of counter force or punishing force, are free to disagree with each other, yet all fall under the libertarian NAP title?

Yes indeed. As with most things, the most predominant "policy" on retaliatory force and the SoL will be a consequence of competition between different kinds of contracts/"packages" offering different terms.

Though if a monopoly naturally forms (one company providing such amazing service, that it drives all competitors out), would such a monopoly be accepted? Though I suppose a more accurate question would be, should that happen, and not be allowed, how would such a thing be enforced (though if it is allowed skip this)?


Example would be that Rags often shows (and has here) that any degree of force forfeits your right to deny force. As he said, if someoen punches me in the arm, I am free to kill them.

Yeah. I doubt that such defense would be "banned" per se, but here's what I think would happen based on my earlier speculation: insurance agencies would make it REALLY expensive to go around playing self-defending vigilante, owning a lot of weapons, etc. Consequently, it would take a massive financial toll on Ragnar to maintain general insurance while ALSO engaging in that sort of lifestyle. Since Ragnar is pretty poor, I imagine, he could choose to go without insurance. If he did, though, I imagine that few people would be willing to deal with him. If he came into my store, however, and I discovered that he wasn't covered by a reputable company, I would be hesitant to do business background, because I would be drawing inferences about his reasons for not having insurance, his potentially shady lifestyle, and stuff like that. Plus, it means I have basically no recourse to collect damages if he decides to walk in, break/steal a bunch of stuff, and walk out. And, given that ALL property would be private in an AnCap society (and the likelihood of smaller communities in an AnCap world). On the other hand, he could choose to keep insurance, in which case he would have to drop his habits to stay in the black. And that's only speaking of insurers.

Stores rarely check insurance before doing business (pending the store). I suppose you could do "insurance checks" much like a credit check or background check. Though such a feature would end up being costly over time and I guess a position similar to mine (credit analyst, though only for insurance, or it might incorporate into my job). But things would find balance I suppose.

One could also say that because he takes matters into his own hands, he is less likely to be targeted, and so less of a risk.

This kinda goes more into AnCap, rather than just the NAP (though it is about how individual companies would co-exist with the NAP), but lets say I have Policy A that interprets the NAP one way, and Rags has Policy B that interprets it his way. We're at a bar where he uses his freedom of speech to insult a friend of mine, I, drunk and not thinking clearly, punch him in the arm (initating force), so he pulls out a sword and cuts my arm off above the elbow (I know, he'd probably just shoot me, but he was showing off for his girl friend that night).

After being rushed to the hospital, lets say they were unable to save my arm, because Rags decide to cut off all the finger except the middle and flip me off with my own arm, before lighting it on fire and peeing it out in the parking lot.

Obviously my company is going to say that he went beyond what they deem as a reasonable view of the NAP and so he should be liable for the damage caused to me, while his is going to support him that he was right in "defending" himself.

Now, when everything is all nice and orderly (in a case where my arm was cut off, mutalated, burned, and pissed on), the two companies would meet with a mediator to come to an agreement. However, Rags' company knows that if they say "F you" to the mediator, there is no higher authority to make them pay, so they can keep everything. Rags (and all of that company's policy holders) would benefit from the company not having to pay out (and thus keep premiums down) as well as know that they can go off their own view of the NAP, regardless of others.

It's like lawyers who focus on "winning" rather than actual justice.

Anyway, this is kinda off topic, so if you want to talk about this via PM, or keep it going here, either is good.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 9:12:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 6:04:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
such as if person A punches me in the arm, can I shoot him in the face and kill him, even if I could have likely neutralized the threat without killing him?
Sure.

Got to love Ragnarian responses.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 10:03:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 7:24:06 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Of course, while people could resort to things like imprisonment and forced labor and such, a voluntary society would likely handle most conflicts with something like this:

Oh this is great. The guy destroys his entire argument within like 11 seconds. "That part of nature that you improve becomes yours..."

This is complete BS and is also the demise of the NAP as well. If I go to a pristine area and enjoy it recreationally, and then one day come back to find bulldozers tearing it up for "improvement," I'm going to feel pretty f*cking aggressed upon by these non-aggressivists. The whole notion of property depends on aggression... If you want to say that this aggression is justified for societal "improvement" then that is arguable, but keeping this holy notion of simultaneous non-agression and property rights is pretty ridiculous.

If you guys are really serious about NAP, and want to keep a free-market paradigm, then you're going to have to cut the hair pretty thin. It is achievable, but you're not going to like how... It has to do with luxury. You see, we transgress on others with our purchasing decisions. Not directly, because of course they have the choice of what profession they'd like (as if everyone could just succeed some day and no one would be left for crap jobs :P), but indirectly. If we cannot control our greed, and insist on spending on our petty consumptive desires, then we are necessarily going to need
1) war
2) poverty / classism / menial labor (to create luxuries)
3) environmental destruction

A state in which the occupants desire all the world offers cannot help to butt heads with other states who are doing the same. It makes no sense to even suggest that the nearly 300 countries in the world are all going to strive for everything their hearts desire and not run into conflict along the way. If a state wants more than a modest existence, in harmony with the land, then it will have to expand. Expansion necessarily means into the territory of a neigboring state - war.

If you'd like to argue with me that everyone can pursue wealth without causing poverty, war, and environmental destruction, then fine, but I have given up hope that there is some intellectual way out of our problems or some miracle technologies on the horizon. Of course Ragnar isn't going to argue that we can all be happy, he'll just assert that the strongest deserve it and the weakest can get bent, while the rest of you ignore the implications of his position.
kfc
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 10:29:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
These ad hoc apologies and bandages are silly. Maybe if you guys derived the NAP instead of taking it as a given it would be clear that this whole thread is irrelevant.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2011 11:35:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That sounds like people'll be going through a lot of red tape to go shopping Cody.

And I love how I'm becoming a memetic badass in people's examples.

Which might be about all I'll be in this thread, since most of the questions seem to be fairly specific to ancaps, other than Rob, who is just assuming his conclusion that war is the best means to profit.
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.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 1:51:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 7:41:44 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/14/2011 7:13:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Yes indeed. As with most things, the most predominant "policy" on retaliatory force and the SoL will be a consequence of competition between different kinds of contracts/"packages" offering different terms.

Though if a monopoly naturally forms (one company providing such amazing service, that it drives all competitors out), would such a monopoly be accepted?

If a monopoly forms, and it's providing phenomenal service at a good price, then you really don't have much to worry about, do you?

I assume the corollary is "Well, what if the company execs do a heel turn and become giant douches and oppress everyone?" Since it's not really a question relevant to the thread, and is an argument which has been made countless times, you can probably find discussion of that in another thread. If you want, you can make a thread titled something like "Inevitability of the state", and the other AnCaps and I can discuss that separately.

AnCap theory

Stores rarely check insurance before doing business (pending the store).

In the status quo, yeah. People are adaptive, though, and the removal of a lot of state mandates and interventions will necessitate that people adapt to life in a market. Instead of having a national ID, just replace that with general insurance cards or something. Maybe you just have to flash it quickly before making a purchase. It may be the case that you can get by in, say, a convenience store, but I can almost guarantee that you'd run into serious problems in big retailers, banks, restaurants, and places like that if you didn't have long-term ties with a reputable company. No insurance? You're not opening an account or getting a loan.

Something which might be really cool is streamlining credit/debit cards with insurance information, to where, when swiping your card at the store, it won't go through if the store's machines are designed to reject non-covered purchases. Like I said, I dunno how all societies would work, so I'm just toying around with ideas. :P

I suppose you could do "insurance checks" much like a credit check or background check. Though such a feature would end up being costly over time and I guess a position similar to mine (credit analyst, though only for insurance, or it might incorporate into my job). But things would find balance I suppose.

Oh, it'd probably end up becoming somewhat costly, depending on the measures you use. But that likely means new industries and productive employment (i.e. a demand for innovation and labor) to establish lower-cost, higher-efficiency means of doing "insurance checks".

One could also say that because he takes matters into his own hands, he is less likely to be targeted, and so less of a risk.

Not to the insurance company, who has to pay out the @ss in cases where legitimate damage claims are brought against him. I'm distinguishing here from health or life insurance, just so we're clear.

This kinda goes more into AnCap, rather than just the NAP (though it is about how individual companies would co-exist with the NAP), but lets say I have Policy A that interprets the NAP one way, and Rags has Policy B that interprets it his way. We're at a bar where he uses his freedom of speech to insult a friend of mine, I, drunk and not thinking clearly, punch him in the arm (initating force), so he pulls out a sword and cuts my arm off above the elbow (I know, he'd probably just shoot me, but he was showing off for his girl friend that night).

I lol'd.

After being rushed to the hospital, lets say they were unable to save my arm, because Rags decide to cut off all the finger except the middle and flip me off with my own arm, before lighting it on fire and peeing it out in the parking lot.

Obviously my company is going to say that he went beyond what they deem as a reasonable view of the NAP and so he should be liable for the damage caused to me, while his is going to support him that he was right in "defending" himself.

Now, when everything is all nice and orderly (in a case where my arm was cut off, mutalated, burned, and pissed on), the two companies would meet with a mediator to come to an agreement. However, Rags' company knows that if they say "F you" to the mediator, there is no higher authority to make them pay, so they can keep everything. Rags (and all of that company's policy holders) would benefit from the company not having to pay out (and thus keep premiums down) as well as know that they can go off their own view of the NAP, regardless of others.

It's like lawyers who focus on "winning" rather than actual justice.

Anyway, this is kinda off topic, so if you want to talk about this via PM, or keep it going here, either is good.

I have a couple of interesting theories as to what could happen. One is pure reputation theory: if I know that you've subscribed to a company that allows you to retaliate by doing whatever the f*ck you feel like, I'm sure as hell not going to take chances being around you, since even a sneeze could justify you smoking me right there. I'm also not going to let you into my bar, because you could just destroy my place to settle your fight and I wouldn't get damages. Having "Do Whatever Insurance Co." would basically be equivalent to no insurance, since neither gives a good reputation. Everyone would be paying a premium for no real benefit.

Keep in mind also that all property would be private, which means that, even if Ragnar is retaliating against you, neither the bar nor its owner are aggressors, which means that damage or defacement of the bar = Ragnar's insurance company has to pay out the @ss to make it worthwhile for people to let him onto their private property/into their buildings.

Another point of interest is the multifaceted ways in which that kind of behavior could be checked. Additionally, defense companies could require that clients restrict themselves to a certain degree of force when retaliating to keep their services. Medical insurance could drop you for engaging in absurdly dangerous behavior on a regular basis (though you have to admit, the whole arm-chopping scenario is a bit much to use as an example). The fact that you own so many crazy weapons and are engaging in egregiously over-the-top behavior indicates some potentially aggressive tendencies, which would probably hike your "social insurance" premiums immensely. It's hard to see how many different things could potentially dissuade him from going apeshit on your @ss.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2011 1:52:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/14/2011 11:35:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That sounds like people'll be going through a lot of red tape to go shopping Cody.

Not necessarily. Consumers will have to be smarter, and people will actually have to work to build strong social and economic relationships, but that seems to be better than the alternative.