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.
If there is no law, and you have enough power to dominate the other person, and they do not have access to any concentration of force great enough to stop your or extract vengeance upon you, you can violate the NAP all day long.
If there is no law as well as if there is law you can violate the NAP all day long. You left out those who are the main violators of the NAP: THE LAW ITSELF (GOVERNMENT).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Which is why I say that it is a human construct layered around the "law of the jungle" to make us more comfortable with our lot in the world and human society.
No, it's a natural right. It exists to a man even if he never has contact with another human being on the face of the planet.
We only discuss it because people usually (like almost always) come into contact with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
For the NAP to function as anything other than a philosophical construct, the power to enforce it must be available. You may say "but they have the right to self defense" - sure, but the right to self defense in the face of a 100 person lynch mob is simply the right to die fighting - you will still be dead either way.
The NPA is the means, not an ends. It simple is...without pride or prejudice. Defensive force is the only morally and logically right of force a man has.
Not sure what the lynch mob example is about. Of course people who choose to violate the NAP that are in great numbers usually cause carnage. That's the State in the overwhelming number of cases. Not sure what your point is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Go shout some blasphemy on the street corner in say, Saudi Arabia, and see what they think of your protestations about them violating the NAP. I think in that situation you would quickly realize how poor a defense a philosophical ideal is against the exercise of brute force.
You can shout here in America and if the State deems you to be a threat it will silence you via various means and violate the NAP.
If there is no law as well as if there is law you can violate the NAP all day long. You left out those who are the main violators of the NAP: THE LAW ITSELF (GOVERNMENT).
No, it's a natural right. It exists to a man even if he never has contact with another human being on the face of the planet.
We only discuss it because people usually (like almost always) come into contact with each other.
The NPA is the means, not an ends. It simple is...without pride or prejudice. Defensive force is the only morally and logically right of force a man has.
Not sure what the lynch mob example is about. Of course people who choose to violate the NAP that are in great numbers usually cause carnage. That's the State in the overwhelming number of cases. Not sure what your point is.
You can shout here in America and if the State deems you to be a threat it will silence you via various means and violate the NAP.
That is wrong. What's your point?
I'll outline my bulleted points so far as simply as I can:
A) The idea that there will be no "highest concentration of power" in a culture is a fantasy, it is an inevitability of human nature that something will fill that slot. The idea that you can have a society where everyone has equal and evenly divided access to force is as naive as the idea of a society where everyone has equal access to money - in fact it is damn near the same thing.
B) It is better to plan ahead of time and fill this void with a planned force that is derived by consensus and compromise rather than burn it all down and just see what pops up.
C) By the nature of a force arrived at through consensus and compromise, you will NEVER find a perfect system, it does not exist, it is still better than what you are most likely to end up with if you let it be derived from chaos. Saying that the government "does bad stuff too" is irrelevant, it is not a perfect system, it has to be measured in comparison to the viable and realistic alternatives. If someone was going to force me into a box of either ants or brown recluse spiders, I will take the ants. What I wont do is tell them to cover both up and flip a coin to decide.
D) Therefore, even if sometimes the government causes harm, the potential for harm is much greater in both societies that have more authoritarian and destructive governments, as well as in societies that have NO GOVERNMENT at all. The perfect is the enemy of the good, or so the saying goes.
So next is the part where you tell me that means that I believe the ends justify the means. Nope - I am not excusing the shortfalls and misdeeds of my government or any other. I am just failing to see any viable alternatives that do a better job at reducing harm. Maybe to you that is ends justifying the means. To me it is simply being realistic about what is possible.
A) The idea that there will be no "highest concentration of power" in a culture is a fantasy, it is an inevitability of human nature that something will fill that slot. The idea that you can have a society where everyone has equal and evenly divided access to force is as naive as the idea of a society where everyone has equal access to money - in fact it is damn near the same thing.
It's the same fantasy that the communists had. The irony.
Animals have no natural rights as man does. It was in the link I provided. If so, they would have to be cognitively able to negotiate those rights if they chose to do so. Do not come back to me with "you don't negotiate rights". You don't. But you can amend them via consensual agreement (contract). I have a right not to be beaten to a pulp by you. If I choose to do so though I may contractually agree with you to have you beat me.
You are assuming the mens rea of an animal or any other non-human when you say "defend itself". Cognitively impossible to know as you can see from my example.
1. Joe beating No_Recess to a pulp without consent - violation of the latter's rights.
2. Joe beating No_Recess to a pulp with consent - no violation of rights.
This is why non-humans and cognitively disabled folks can't form binding contracts...even under your warped world of statism.
If statism gets something right...you know it has got to be a truth so undeniable that the government can't even take it away from you.
The notion of amendable rights is just mental gymnastics designed to facilitate a working model for civil society. The idea that it should be accepted as a truth, is just the workings of the state trying organise the mind of the herd.
I'll outline my bulleted points so far as simply as I can:
A) The idea that there will be no "highest concentration of power" in a culture is a fantasy
Conjecture but in any event power by force is all I'm arguing against. Not power by consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
it is an inevitability of human nature that something will fill that slot. The idea that you can have a society where everyone has equal and evenly divided access to force is as naive as the idea of a society where everyone has equal access to money - in fact it is damn near the same thing.
Monopolized centralized force at gunpoint has resulted in a strict hierarchy where a certain type of force and certain type of money are mandatory...or it's the cage/death. If you break up the monopoly of force then people can negotiate as they see fit for exactly what they want and how they will compensate the other party for the good/service. This is why taxation is such a heavy burden on the idea of freedom. Not only are you being robbed at gunpoint (NAP violation) you must make sure you have the "correct currency" for your mugger. As far as I've been able to tell the minimum amount of interaction you must have with the State is property taxes. I know this because I know folks who have gone down to this level of resistance. You can't go any lower because refusal to pay is the cage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
B) It is better to plan ahead of time and fill this void with a planned force that is derived by consensus and compromise rather than burn it all down and just see what pops up.
Not for the hundreds of millions in body bags it isn't or hasn't been a better plan...
C) By the nature of a force arrived at through consensus and compromise, you will NEVER find a perfect system, it does not exist, it is still better than what you are most likely to end up with if you let it be derived from chaos.
1. The ends never justify the means.
2. It's all fun and games until you're the one wronged by the consensus (end up in said body bags from above point).
3. Chaos is the natural state of a human being. So is poverty. You come into this world free of associations, contracts, and without the ability to feed/clothe/and shelter yourself. Still, humans found a way to survive before forming governments.
Now this is the point where I point out that you are the one who believes contracts are sealed as soon as that baby flies out of a vagina so I'm sure I'll meet resistance here. It's been a long week and I'm not sure I can entertain the notion of an infant agreeing to something with an umbilical cord still attached to his person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Saying that the government "does bad stuff too" is irrelevant, it is not a perfect system, it has to be measured in comparison to the viable and realistic alternatives.
I'm not looking for the ends, you are. I'm looking for the means. Viable and realistic alternatives is statist drivel. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If you believe in initiating force on others that's on you. It is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
If someone was going to force me into a box of either ants or brown recluse spiders, I will take the ants. What I wont do is tell them to cover both up and flip a coin to decide.
I don't know how this will come off but I've gotten to know you and someone like ChiGeekGuest on here and it just disappoints me to see two people who are obviously quite intelligent and rational...and I will say more so than me...use such flawed logic when it comes to "this one thing" (meaning government). Theft is wrong. Oh but you have a government badge, ok! Killing is wrong. Oh but you have a government badge, ok! And so on and so forth.
You guys must harbor some serious cognitive dissonance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
D) Therefore, even if sometimes the government causes harm, the potential for harm is much greater in both societies that have more authoritarian and destructive governments, as well as in societies that have NO GOVERNMENT at all. The perfect is the enemy of the good, or so the saying goes.
Potential for harm is everywhere. Life is messy. Might as well be free. Justifying force because something may happen is a slippery slope laced with butter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
So next is the part where you tell me that means that I believe the ends justify the means. Nope - I am not excusing the shortfalls and misdeeds of my government or any other. I am just failing to see any viable alternatives that do a better job at reducing harm. Maybe to you that is ends justifying the means. To me it is simply being realistic about what is possible.
It's clearly you saying the ends justifying the means. The goal isn't to reduce harm. The goal is to not violate the rights of others. Harm can and will still happen.
You deciding for others what's "realistic" and what is "possible" is pure authoritarianism. Plain and simple.
The notion of amendable rights is just mental gymnastics designed to facilitate a working model for civil society. The idea that it should be accepted it as some sort of truth, is just the workings of the state, trying organise the mind of the herd.
WTF are you talking about?
I can't enter into a contract with you in a free society where it says you will beat me to death?
The notion of amendable rights stems from free will. If I want you to kill me we should be able to hash that out.
Who knew statists could be so funny in between all the killing and robbing?
Unfortuantly sometimes if someone or some group has leveraged you into a corner state sanctioned violence is the only way out if you dont want to be a slave or starve. Thats just the way it goes. Some people and groups once they gain an upper hand the only thing they will understand is violence, that is just a sad reality.
Unfortuantly sometimes if someone or some group has leveraged you into a corner state sanctioned violence is the only way out if you dont want to be a slave or starve. Thats just the way it goes.
Translation: To avoid slavery you must be a slave to the State.
the right of two individuals to agree to anything already exists, and isn't a special right.
Uh, so the State is going to let it slide after you kill me per our contract?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
