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.
"It is, of course, common sense to think that aggression is a bad thing. But it is far from common sense to think that its badness is absolute, such that the wrongness of aggression always trumps any other possible consideration of justice or political morality. There is a vast difference between a strong but defeasible presumption against the justice of aggression, and an absolute, universal prohibition. As Bryan Caplan has said, if you can’t think of counterexamples to the latter, you’re not trying hard enough."
I tried to follow all this back-and-forth about NAP, lots that doesn't make much sense to me. I must admit I had never before seen the subject up close and personal like that, all the while wondering how much time could be spent going around in circles without really getting anywhere. I'm not a Libertarian by any means, so I suppose the meaning is somewhat lost on me, but I have to admit I was curious to learn what I might be missing in terms of the importance. Not sure I have not taken more time for no good reason, but I hope this helps some...
People caveat the NAP all the time to make exceptions and such (i.e. aggression is allowed under certain circumstances), but the wording of the NAP never changes. If the principal has to be constantly modified and altered to fit in what ever moral relativism they are arguing, its not a principal any more.
A moral is not a moral if it's not absolute. You cant logically claim the moral high ground then trivialize this moral by making exceptions to the principal you value as tantamount. The NAP is/was established as a baseline for all decisions within a libertarian society. Except, its not a baseline because its always changing based on the circumstances and there are many times other moral imperatives out right trump it, as we seen in this thread where the need for justice would trump the NAP. The NAP is worded incredibly rigid and allows no flexibility, yet people defend it and trivialize in the same breath.
Last edited by billydaman; 09-16-2015 at 11:47 AM..
Is that why the dollars purchasing power held up when we were on the gold standard compared to now?
The gold standard restricts economic growth to the rate of new findings of gold, had we kept the gold standard our economy would have collapsed, macro economics is a bit more complex than " If I make a 100 , then I can only spend a 100".
"If the principal has to be constantly modified and altered to fit in what ever moral relativism they are arguing, its not principal any more."
Reminds me a bit of all the debate over what the Constitution really means. Often takes our SCTUS to figure that out, so I suppose NAP might require a bit of the same consideration.
Yes, a little new to this topic, but philosophy is always of interest to me, why people believe what they do...
Also seems to me that NAP is pretty easy to get behind, whether libertarian or not, much like the command, "do onto others as you would have them do to you."
All pretty easy to understand and support of course, until then you consider the way the world turns on a more practical level, where not everyone bothers with philosophy or ponders the issue of right vs wrong, let alone gives a crap either way...
Ron Paul's "crazy" ideas about government (no income tax, legal prositution, legal drugs, formally declared wars, etc.) were the norm in this country for most of its existence. Why do people act like he's crazy?
Something creepy about RP.
His focus is easily distracted and he loses sight of goals to get bogged down is irrelevant side issues.
No evidence he can work with others and is like obama in that regard.
Ron Paul's "crazy" ideas about government (no income tax, legal prositution, legal drugs, formally declared wars, etc.) were the norm in this country for most of its existence. Why do people act like he's crazy?
While I agree with much of what Ron Paul suggests I think one of the things that turns off older Americans is his constant, almost reflexive need to instantly blame the US for every international problem since the dawn of time. He constantly mentions "blowback", etc.... Of course it is true that we have made mistakes, but we aren't responsible for every international ill.
We get enough of that nonsense from the Left.
Apart from that I agree with probably 90% of whet he has to say. It's his delivery that turns a lot of people off.
Or maybe just maybe we have too many people blindly believing all our foreign affairs are right, admiral and just when all too much evidence often points otherwise.
IMHO, there is plenty of "good, bad and ugly" when it comes to American foreign affairs, but not enough people who can tell what from what, who care, support what is right and denounce what is wrong.
I also believe this is true of liberals and conservatives alike.
Most all Americans really don't know what the powers that be are up to at any given time or why...
"It is, of course, common sense to think that aggression is a bad thing. But it is far from common sense to think that its badness is absolute, such that the wrongness of aggression always trumps any other possible consideration of justice or political morality. There is a vast difference between a strong but defeasible presumption against the justice of aggression, and an absolute, universal prohibition. As Bryan Caplan has said, if you can’t think of counterexamples to the latter, you’re not trying hard enough."
I tried to follow all this back-and-forth about NAP, lots that doesn't make much sense to me. I must admit I had never before seen the subject up close and personal like that, all the while wondering how much time could be spent going around in circles without really getting anywhere. I'm not a Libertarian by any means, so I suppose the meaning is somewhat lost on me, but I have to admit I was curious to learn what I might be missing in terms of the importance. Not sure I have not taken more time for no good reason, but I hope this helps some...
Thats part of my point being up there with "small government", its a term that doesnt actually mean anything, but if we take it at its word, then it means just what I said , and there for can not function and is no government at all.
Of course it means nothing specific. It's just a general idea. The government is too large and those who support a large government have to further and further erode into the rights of others to continue to expand that government.
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.
