Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
NAP is a concept. The agreement of the individuals in a society at large that it is valid and that they will adhere to it is a social contract. If we are in an anarchy and I can consolidate more total power than you can, you might very well end up my slave, should I deem it worth the effort to exercise my superior power to enslave you. I am not saying you wouldn't have the right to try to defend yourself, I am saying if you are outgunned you would not have the power. At that point your only option is to seek out a power stronger than yourself(or die fighting or become a slave), and 2 can play at that game. Now you have factions in a power arms race, which will accumulate power until they become defacto states.
|
No. The NAP is not a social contract. You're confusing the application of social interactions with the natural or default setting of a human being (which is anarchy).
It exists whether people agree to it (only a few do like myself) or don't (nearly all folks are statists like yourself).
You have two groups:
1. The statist: Upon birth you enter into a social contract with whatever ruling government exerts force over your geographic area. All rights and privileges are ceded to the government at birth and then returned to the person as it sees fit. Since it is impossible to give consent at birth the social contract is a clear violation of the NAP.
2. The non-statist: Upon birth you do not enter into any agreements. As you age you have the right to live peacefully as long as you don't initiate force on others because that simultaneously ends their right to live without being violated. All agreements must be consensual meaning both parties are free from duress and have the cognitive ability to make said pacts.
The reason why anarchy...and by extension the NAP...is the default setting of a human being is because
1. A baby can't give consent.
2. If not, the default setting of a human being is that of a slave.
Now I kid you statists a lot about being slaves and loving slavery but I tend to think you don't believe that by virtue of being shot out of a vagina or by standing in a certain geographic area that consent to be governed is being given.
Watch my video!!!
Also, and here is why anarchy is logically and I would argue morally superior, the NAP is guaranteed to be broken under statism (at birth the social contract is bestowed upon the child) whereas while highly highly highly unlikely the NAP may never be broken in an anarchic society.
At the very least it isn't broken at birth.
This gets back to the one of the memes I posted the other day. Something along the lines of
Statism: the brilliant idea that you should give people the right to kill, steal, and oppress people who may kill, steal, and oppress you.
1. It's not only counterproductive but
2. It's not logically or morally possible. If you believe that you don't have the right to come to my house and kill me (assuming you don't) you also don't have the right to instruct someone to come to my house and kill me.
Watch the video!!!
It makes total sense. You can't create rights from individuals who don't have the same right if they were alone.
If you believe that I can't knock on your door and demand that you give me X% of your paycheck and you can't knock on my door and demand that I give you X% of my paycheck then both of us combined can't knock on Bill's door next door and demand X% of his paycheck.
As it stands now, both of us believe in the first two tenets in that scenario. I believe in the third but you don't.
You aren't being logically and I would argue morally consistent.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
