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.
My point is that the NAP changes based on the underlying property rights. Two people with different ideas of property rights can both claim the other was "aggressing" because aggression is the violation of each other's version of property rights. So appealing to "aggressing" on someone's property as wrong is begging the question.
The NAP doesn't change. Someone may misunderstand it, but that doesn't change what it is. It's wrong to initiate force against another person, meaning you shouldn't use force or threaten force against a peaceful person who hasn't used it against you first. If I said that my idea of the NAP was that you're allowed to use force if other people call you mean names or something, I'd be wrong. I could try to argue that the widely accepted idea of the NAP should be changed to mine, but if I'm not convincing then nobody will enforce my idea of it.
Quote:
In any case there isn't a sense that property rights are more logical and consistent, I've shown a few times that the "logic" of ACist version of property rights is riddled with logical errors. It's no different than any other version of property rights though. It's a matter of looking at different sets of property rights and determining the benefits and drawbacks of each one.
I don't think you have. Could you list the logical errors you've found? I think I've addressed any issues you've brought up. If you show any inconsistencies I'd be willing to change my mind, honestly.
Quote:
When you lose a court case many times you turn over the money because it's implied that you'll be forced to do so through imprisonment or forcible taking of the property by people with guns, very rarely do you do so willingly or else you wouldn't be contesting it in the first place. Again voluntaryism has at its base some very unvolunteristic things. Why do I agree to pay you goods for services? It's not because I volunteer to do so, it's because it's implied that you have a gun stopping me from just taking the goods or services, which is what the state provides, that implied gun. Now you can say that its a good thing that people are forced not to simply just take things, and I'd agree but it's not voluntary it's by force.
Not all force is bad. I think I've said that enough in this thread, but I'll say it again. It's using force against someone who didn't use it against you or another innocent person first. As far as paying for services, both parties choose if they want to trade, and if either one doesn't consent to it...no deal. If you decide steal, the person it belongs to has the right to take it back. If you initiate the theft, it isn't breaking the NAP to take it back by force because you were the one initiating the force/violation of property rights.
Your entire premise doesn't negate social contract theory. It simply offers up a different social contract. When Rousseau wrote his book on social contract theory, he was writing from his experiences--IN EUROPE. He wasn't writing about the United States. He was simply saying that a government, any government, has certain obligations to its people, and certain expectations from them, ala a social contract.
And thus far, your arguments regarding how people in a voluntary society are going to deal with other members of that society who don't volunteer to be cooperative are less than convincing.
It's fine if you aren't convinced. It's hard for me to convince people using strictly pragmatic arguments because it's impossible to predict exactly how everything would function, much like someone in the 1800's couldn't predict what society would look like without slave-driven agriculture making up 95% of the economy. My main argument is that the state is immoral, and we should look at all the ways that society flourishes in the absence of state force to get a better idea of what society could look like. I've said it before, but if I thought slavery was wrong, I wouldn't be arguing for reasons why society couldn't work if we got rid of slavery. I'd be trying to denounce it and find alternatives.
Anyway, with the social contract...I guess it wouldn't negate social contract theory when described that way. In a stateless society you'd be entering a social contract voluntarily. The problem I have is that people throw out the social contract to imply that I currently consent to being ruled, and I don't.
Sorry in the delay for the reply. My responses are in red and bolded.
You do consent in that you live there. Take the blue laws some counties have. You can decide to live if not just shop elsewhere to stick it to them. Sales taxes are the same way. I avoid shopping at the nearest mall due to high sales taxes. I maybe go three/four times a year.
That's tacit consent, and it isn't valid. You can't agree to something by doing nothing. If I offer you a hot dog and you ignore me, that doesn't mean I can take your money just because you never said "I don't want to buy the hot dog". The fact that sales taxes even exist make the interaction involuntary. Maybe you would normally buy something, but they're extorting you for more money, so you go somewhere else. You're choosing to go elsewhere only because of the force that would be used against you if you didn't. Take out that tax and you probably wouldn't spend the extra gas money going somewhere else.
Quote:
Well it isn't easy as "things that their neighbor is doing that they dislike." That is a canned line like the whole "hurt feelings" over discrimination. That often comes out. It's like with the problem with noise pollution laws that some libertarians have because you have to ask the police (aka "daddy government") to stop them from playing music too loud. Nine times out of ten, it is too loud they can't hear it.
There might be some issues where the solution is less obvious, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer for it. I think it would depend on the individual case. If you're just annoyed by the neighbor, that's your problem. If they're actually doing damage to your health, that's on them. Maybe the music is damaging your ears, or you can't get enough sleep and it's affecting your health...so that would make a difference. If your neighbor is just annoying but isn't harming anyone, you can choose to move or live with it. He/she isn't doing anything wrong.
Quote:
True but in a stateless society there is no "rent" you would have to pay
Are you talking about actual rent or the "rent" to the government that I was talking about? No, you wouldn't need to pay a tax/fee to keep your own property like you have to now, but you could definitely still pay rent to live one someone else's if you chose to.
Quote:
You can claim that right now even with HOAs but it typically is similar to the apartment issue of "Our development, our rules. You don't like it, sell and move out."
I think we agree here...unless I'm misunderstanding. If you know about the HOA rules before you move there and it's part of the deal for buying that property, then you've agreed to it beforehand and must follow their rules. If they come in after you already own it and try to act like you agreed to their rules by staying there, you don't have to listen to them.
Quote:
First off the court wouldn't be like we see it. For one, you aren't "forced to trial" like in regards to criminal specifically and also as oppose to lawsuits it is not show up or lose your case. Second off, it will be more motioned towards conflict resolution rather than crime because for crimes to exist, you would need laws written up and fully agreed upon. Under this, the only law that would be agreed is no theft. Third off, the resolution would have much less teeth than it does right now. Right now while you don't HAVE to, you typically pay off financial obligations from trials to the winning party barring bankruptcy. In a libertarian world, if there is monetary value lost, you have no full obligation to do so and boycotting business/patronage wont work because you may likely face that without not paying the fine. Maybe a few more people, but you get the idea. Fourth is the already addressed issue of crooked judges. You mentioned them being paid but how would they be unless the courts were privatized making another barrier to resolution for the poor.
It would be private courts that compete with each other, which lowers the price and increases the quality...and you get to choose which one you like best instead of having one forced on you. I've heard some debates about private courts and both sides had some decent points. I'm no expert and haven't done a ton of research into the topic, but there are people much more knowledgeable that could probably answer better than I can. I'd try right now, but I'm kind of trying to answer these quickly so I can move on to something else.
Quote:
When you open up a company to the FULL public, you again sign a social contract to interact with those you don't deem a risk regardless of race, sexuality, gender and religion. You don't want that, keep the business "underground" and only serve your friends.
I don't think you sign a social contract by simply opening a business. Can you just say "We aren't open to the public. We're only open to ________" and list whoever you want to serve? As long as you aren't threatened with violence for refusing to trade with somebody, I guess that's fine...but you shouldn't need permission from anyone to sell whatever you want to whoever you want to sell it to. It's your choice.
So sometimes force is good and sometimes it's bad. Sounds like this don't initiate force isn't some kind of iron clad rule and you're carving out exceptions when force is justified based on you're underlying idea of property rights. Well if I'm using the waffle iron in your house and you try and stop me, you're initiating force on me because I believe all property reverts back to nature when not immediately possessed. See? Why don't you follow the NAP and leave me alone while I'm making waffles, instead of calling goons with guns to unilaterally use violence against me, or as you call them, the police?
Initiate force. The first one to use violence is wrong. If someone else uses force against you first, you can obviously defend yourself.
It would be an exception to say "it's okay to initiate force in this situation, but not others", but saying you should never be the initiator of force is a consistent principle.
[/color][/b]That's tacit consent, and it isn't valid. You can't agree to something by doing nothing. If I offer you a hot dog and you ignore me, that doesn't mean I can take your money just because you never said "I don't want to buy the hot dog".
Tacit Consent is defined as tacit (implied) approval of someone's wrongdoing by The Free Dictionary. I don't see taxes as being that. Taxes aren't a wrong doing other than the fact you have your feelings hurt that money given to you by your employer or you collected by selling stock, the government needs to take from you for roads, jails, police, fire, the armed forces, etc. for services you use or may need to use someday.
Also while we are on the topic, John Locke (a common libertarian go-to philosopher) was all for tacit consent.
Quote:
"The most direct reading of Locke's political philosophy finds the concept of consent playing a central role. His analysis begins with individuals in a state of nature where they are not subject to a common legitimate authority with the power to legislate or adjudicate disputes. From this natural state of freedom and independence, Locke stresses individual consent as the mechanism by which political societies are created and individuals join those societies. While there are of course some general obligations and rights that all people have from the law of nature, special obligations come about only when we voluntarily undertake them. Locke clearly states that one can only become a full member of society by an act of express consent (Two Treatises 2.122). The literature on Locke's theory of consent tends to focus on how Locke does or does not successfully answer the following objection: few people have actually consented to their governments so no, or almost no, governments are actually legitimate. This conclusion is problematic since it is clearly contrary to Locke's intention.
Locke's most obvious solution to this problem is his doctrine of tacit consent. Simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory. This, Locke thinks, explains why resident aliens have an obligation to obey the laws of the state where they reside, though only while they live there."
The fact that sales taxes even exist make the interaction involuntary. Maybe you would normally buy something, but they're extorting you for more money, so you go somewhere else. You're choosing to go elsewhere only because of the force that would be used against you if you didn't. Take out that tax and you probably wouldn't spend the extra gas money going somewhere else.
[/b]
I actually spend the extra gas money to go to the mall compared to two Walmarts or a Target in my (nearest) town or even Amazon shop online (though after two recent issues with shipping, I'm re-thinking my favorability of them.) There is however "no force" to get me to pay the sales tax. No one has the threat of violence to coherse me to buy from there, they just take my items and put them back on the shelf for someone else to buy who will consent.
There might be some issues where the solution is less obvious, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer for it. I think it would depend on the individual case. If you're just annoyed by the neighbor, that's your problem. If they're actually doing damage to your health, that's on them. Maybe the music is damaging your ears, or you can't get enough sleep and it's affecting your health...so that would make a difference. If your neighbor is just annoying but isn't harming anyone, you can choose to move or live with it. He/she isn't doing anything wrong.
One of these "some libertarians" didn't care if it hurt your ears that he ghetto-blasted on his car stereo. This was regardless if there was the NAP. I brought up the car stereo blasting above the point of momentary deafness and ear pain in another thread and that person I was replying to shrugged it off for being "below pain" despite it being 15 decibles ABOVE momentary deafness.//www.city-data.com/forum/35139819-post242.html
[/color][/b]
Are you talking about actual rent or the "rent" to the government that I was talking about? No, you wouldn't need to pay a tax/fee to keep your own property like you have to now, but you could definitely still pay rent to live one someone else's if you chose to.
I was speaking of an economic rent rather than true rent that most people know off.
I think we agree here...unless I'm misunderstanding. If you know about the HOA rules before you move there and it's part of the deal for buying that property, then you've agreed to it beforehand and must follow their rules. If they come in after you already own it and try to act like you agreed to their rules by staying there, you don't have to listen to them.
We were indeed agreeing on HOAs.
[/b][/color]
It would be private courts that compete with each other, which lowers the price and increases the quality...and you get to choose which one you like best instead of having one forced on you. I've heard some debates about private courts and both sides had some decent points. I'm no expert and haven't done a ton of research into the topic, but there are people much more knowledgeable that could probably answer better than I can. I'd try right now, but I'm kind of trying to answer these quickly so I can move on to something else.
And how would private courts work? We would likely have to pay for them either by filing OR upon settlement. These are wrong as you would have to pay for their services to use them to settle a dispute that simple means cannot settle. The best method if we wanted no courts IMO would be unpaid judges/mediators. If they are driven by money whether bribed or paid per case or upon resolution, it can taint the system.
I think competition in the courts also isn't a good idea because I may file in a favorable court you and you file in a favorable court to you. Where's the case heard: in my court, your court or an agreed court?
I don't think you sign a social contract by simply opening a business. Can you just say "We aren't open to the public. We're only open to ________" and list whoever you want to serve? As long as you aren't threatened with violence for refusing to trade with somebody, I guess that's fine...but you shouldn't need permission from anyone to sell whatever you want to whoever you want to sell it to. It's your choice.
It's not about what the individual thinks, it's about what the collection of individuals do. We can and should debate if that is working and if we should change logic. However, for now you have to. If you don't, you'll have people suing you and/or reporting you to agencies or to the media.
As to your question, you can but it has to be a private organization like say the Boy Scouts or "smoking clubs" that are bars that members pay dues in order to smoke there rather than having to smoke elsewhere. Otherwise, just sell to some friends and not market it beyond that group if you want to not be open to the public. The minute you go public, you have the public as a master to serve now.
Tacit Consent is defined as tacit (implied) approval of someone's wrongdoing by The Free Dictionary. I don't see taxes as being that. Taxes aren't a wrong doing other than the fact you have your feelings hurt that money given to you by your employer or you collected by selling stock, the government needs to take from you for roads, jails, police, fire, the armed forces, etc. for services you use or may need to use someday.
Also while we are on the topic, John Locke (a common libertarian go-to philosopher) was all for tacit consent.
Locke had many great ideas, but that wasn't one of them. I think he realized that tacit consent was the only way to justify "legitimate authority" as it said in the quote, and instead of accepting that government can't be legitimate unless everyone gives express consent, he convinced himself that tacit consent is okay because he didn't like the outcome of the alternative (that almost no government can be legitimate).
Quote:
I actually spend the extra gas money to go to the mall compared to two Walmarts or a Target in my (nearest) town or even Amazon shop online (though after two recent issues with shipping, I'm re-thinking my favorability of them.) There is however "no force" to get me to pay the sales tax. No one has the threat of violence to coherse me to buy from there, they just take my items and put them back on the shelf for someone else to buy who will consent.
It doesn't seem like force on the surface, but it actually is. You're not being forced to shop there, but if you would have normally shopped there without the extra tax, that force is making you go somewhere else. You aren't directly being forced, but the tax is changing your decision. If you picture it, it's more like the government waiting at the cash register to extort extra money out of you for shopping at store #1, so it's a threat of violence. They aren't pointing the gun at you and forcing you to shop anywhere, but they're waiting there with a gun and making you think twice about shopping there.
Quote:
It's not about what the individual thinks, it's about what the collection of individuals do. We can and should debate if that is working and if we should change logic. However, for now you have to. If you don't, you'll have people suing you and/or reporting you to agencies or to the media.
For now I have to, but I shouldn't have to, so I have to make my case against it. The thing that stood out here is your first sentence. Is that what you believe, or are you just saying that's how it is now? Right now the collective majority has an excuse to impose their will on the minority through democracy, but my argument is that every individual has rights that can't be violated, even if a bunch of people vote that it's okay.
Quote:
And how would private courts work? We would likely have to pay for them either by filing OR upon settlement. These are wrong as you would have to pay for their services to use them to settle a dispute that simple means cannot settle. The best method if we wanted no courts IMO would be unpaid judges/mediators. If they are driven by money whether bribed or paid per case or upon resolution, it can taint the system.
I think competition in the courts also isn't a good idea because I may file in a favorable court you and you file in a favorable court to you. Where's the case heard: in my court, your court or an agreed court?
There wouldn't be any set way of doing it, so if you have a good idea for how it could run, great. You can try it out if you get some other people on board with it. I'm not sure what the best way is. I personally think private courts could work, but maybe there are better ways.
It really isn't that helpful to look at the past to predict the future though...the future will be much different than we imagine, so most of the specific predictions we make now will be wrong anyway. That's a big reason I hate going into the "how would this work, and who would do this or that" type of argument. Even a really well thought out and planned idea could end up being wrong, and some crazy idea that sounds ridiculous to us now might work in the future. Try going back in time and explaining in detail how the internet will change society, or how vaccines and other medical advances will take care of diseases that were incurable in the past. If you told them how it actually happened they'd think you're just making up random stuff that makes no sense to them.
Quote:
As to your question, you can but it has to be a private organization like say the Boy Scouts or "smoking clubs" that are bars that members pay dues in order to smoke there rather than having to smoke elsewhere. Otherwise, just sell to some friends and not market it beyond that group if you want to not be open to the public. The minute you go public, you have the public as a master to serve now.
That last line is what makes me disagree. If you own the product, nobody can force you to give it away for any reason because it isn't theirs. If you have a service to offer, nobody can make you their slave and force you to serve them. I know this is one of those things neither of us are budging on.
You took it from me first, so you were the initiator.
This is why that case is a bad case to test the idea of the NAP. The NAPis better tested by say human shields, various versions of the trolley problem and non-physical harassment.
Locke had many great ideas, but that wasn't one of them. I think he realized that tacit consent was the only way to justify "legitimate authority" as it said in the quote, and instead of accepting that government can't be legitimate unless everyone gives express consent, he convinced himself that tacit consent is okay because he didn't like the outcome of the alternative (that almost no government can be legitimate).
It could be especially if Locke was around today. Who knows honestly.
It doesn't seem like force on the surface, but it actually is. You're not being forced to shop there, but if you would have normally shopped there without the extra tax, that force is making you go somewhere else. You aren't directly being forced, but the tax is changing your decision. If you picture it, it's more like the government waiting at the cash register to extort extra money out of you for shopping at store #1, so it's a threat of violence. They aren't pointing the gun at you and forcing you to shop anywhere, but they're waiting there with a gun and making you think twice about shopping there.
[color=Red]If libertarians claim that I am do have the choice to goto a place because of allowed smoking, you can't claim here you are forced to shop there because it is the same thing, you chose where you go and frequent. You choose where you patron, you aren't forced to go anyway except if there are limited players in that specific market and industry. If you don't pay, you don't get the items. You know the laundry saying "no tickie, no shirtie?" Well in this case its no money, no product or service. At least there are substitutes you can use. That is what makes it not a force.
For now I have to, but I shouldn't have to, so I have to make my case against it. The thing that stood out here is your first sentence. Is that what you believe, or are you just saying that's how it is now? Right now the collective majority has an excuse to impose their will on the minority through democracy, but my argument is that every individual has rights that can't be violated, even if a bunch of people vote that it's okay.
It maybe but you have to fight for change. Standing on the sidelines with your popcorn waiting for the system to fail and not work, could take your entire life and then some. Instead, do something constructive.
There wouldn't be any set way of doing it, so if you have a good idea for how it could run, great. You can try it out if you get some other people on board with it. I'm not sure what the best way is. I personally think private courts could work, but maybe there are better ways.
I don't because even unpaid judges (IMO the best for all parties) can and will be swayed by the almighty dollar. It just won't work.
It really isn't that helpful to look at the past to predict the future though...the future will be much different than we imagine, so most of the specific predictions we make now will be wrong anyway. That's a big reason I hate going into the "how would this work, and who would do this or that" type of argument. Even a really well thought out and planned idea could end up being wrong, and some crazy idea that sounds ridiculous to us now might work in the future. Try going back in time and explaining in detail how the internet will change society, or how vaccines and other medical advances will take care of diseases that were incurable in the past. If you told them how it actually happened they'd think you're just making up random stuff that makes no sense to them.
Who mentioned anything of going to the past? The issue is that a privatized court system that is even non-profit hurts the integrity and the purpose of the courts. At least in the current system, a poor person can get a pro-bono lawyer and/or a lawyer who would take a win only payment. In the private system, unless they are getting served they will not be able to put up the money in a paid court and in an unpaid court, you would be subject to not bribing the judge.
That last line is what makes me disagree. If you own the product, nobody can force you to give it away for any reason because it isn't theirs. If you have a service to offer, nobody can make you their slave and force you to serve them. I know this is one of those things neither of us are budging on.
You are right that I wont budge on it. I dated a black female, I look back fifty, sixty years ago and I would either be treated as a second-class citizen when I go on dates with her, or wouldn't be able to go on dates with her. And this isn't "hurt feelings," this is me not having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of some moron that thinks he should only sell to whites. This is why this is illegal by law and why religious right to discriminate laws are wrong.
If libertarians claim that I am do have the choice to goto a place because of allowed smoking, you can't claim here you are forced to shop there because it is the same thing, you chose where you go and frequent. You choose where you patron, you aren't forced to go anyway except if there are limited players in that specific market and industry. If you don't pay, you don't get the items. You know the laundry saying "no tickie, no shirtie?" Well in this case its no money, no product or service. At least there are substitutes you can use. That is what makes it not a force.
The store you would normally go to didn't choose to have extra taxes that kept you from shopping there. The government did that when they don't own the store. That's the force being used...if the store was adding an extra fee by their own choice, then that's fine. It isn't force against you directly, but force is what's influencing your decision to go somewhere else. If that force disappeared, you would probably make a different decision than you do now with the extra taxes.
My main point is that sales taxes are still backed by force. If you buy something and refuse to pay the tax, you get punished (or the store doesn't let you buy it because they'll be punished). It's just minor detail, but all taxes are backed by force.
Quote:
It maybe but you have to fight for change. Standing on the sidelines with your popcorn waiting for the system to fail and not work, could take your entire life and then some. Instead, do something constructive.
That's what I'm doing. I try to talk to people about it because that's the only way anything can change. The only thing that needs to change is to get people to accept the NAP, and then the rest works itself out. Maybe I'll start going to events or making videos at some point too...I have no idea.
Quote:
Who mentioned anything of going to the past? The issue is that a privatized court system that is even non-profit hurts the integrity and the purpose of the courts. At least in the current system, a poor person can get a pro-bono lawyer and/or a lawyer who would take a win only payment. In the private system, unless they are getting served they will not be able to put up the money in a paid court and in an unpaid court, you would be subject to not bribing the judge.
I meant that people usually look at past examples of how things worked, or how they work now, and then they imagine that things in the future will work in a similar way. That usually isn't true. If we make predictions now, the actual thing that happens will almost always be way different than what we imagined.
Another example...If you lived even just 10-20 years ago and someone asked you how communication would work in the future and you said "In the next decade or so, we'll be able to have a face to face chat with someone across the world using a device that fits in our pockets, and the program will be free (Skype mobile)", people would think you were just making up random nonsense. They would never accept that answer. That's why it's hard to say what people will do in a future stateless society. We can all guess, but I bet none of us are correct. All I know is that the state is immoral.
Quote:
You are right that I wont budge on it. I dated a black female, I look back fifty, sixty years ago and I would either be treated as a second-class citizen when I go on dates with her, or wouldn't be able to go on dates with her. And this isn't "hurt feelings," this is me not having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of some moron that thinks he should only sell to whites. This is why this is illegal by law and why religious right to discriminate laws are wrong.
The main thing we disagree on is...you think that it's okay to force someone to give you their stuff or work for you, and I don't think it's ever okay to do that. You say that they're depriving you of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you don't have a right to their labor or their stuff in the first place. That's why I can't agree.
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.
