5 ms·

>> The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "ro

>> The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "rob"? What does it mean to "force someone to do something"? Have you got an inkling, perhaps? >> The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible. Why would it need to? It's not a system of social organization, it's a principle. But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. Sure, not everyone does. But even their choices and actions have consequences, and that's not about to change either way.

steveklabnik 13y ago
I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. > But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring to, exactly. But property is based on property rights, is it not? It makes no sense to think that you have no rights in the absence of a government. Think about it. If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? -Of course you would. Governments have nothing to do with that. >> If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless The statement means what it means, even if only as a sentence. But look, I already acknowledged that not everyone adheres to the NAP. That can't be helped now, and it probably can't be helped ever. But the number of people who aggress against others can sure be reduced through peaceful, sensible, consistent parenting, for example. The fact that not every single goddamn human being out there is good is not a reason to dismiss libertarian/free-market/anarchist ideas. You'll have to do way better than that, but ultimately, you'll find that reason, logic, and evidence should / can not be dismissed at all.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and let you make a claim first. >> This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. Which argument? "Think about it" doesn't constitute one, so it seems you wanted to quote something other than what you were supposedly addressing. That's kind of weird. >> There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.' Sure. It's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But is it worthwhile? Moral rules are not absolutes, but that's alright. The point is to get close enough, and there are often several sensible ways to view ideas, such as "property" for example. But bickering about the exact definitions of words your opponent happens to use is just a bullshit distraction, intentional or not. I've wasted way too much time on that road already. We both use and understand the English language just fine. There are no obstacles to our communication besides the ones intentionally put up.
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        I did make a claim. The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless. You re-asserted a particular definition, and said 'think about it.' I don't find that to be particularly convincing.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless And I pointed out that you don't really need any specific definitions for "force" or "initiation" (and that bickering about the definitions for everyday words is a bullshit distraction). But suppose "force" meant "violence or coercion", and "to initiate" meant "to start" (there's no real confusion about that, at least). With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP?
21echoes 13y ago
the NAP is in effect. it's just me and you in the forest, and there's one apple tree. you "own" the apple tree. I am starving, and I "steal" an apple from your tree. who initiated the aggression?
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  There's no need to quibble about "lifeboat scenarios". You can come up with countless scenarios where there needs to be an "exception" to the NAP, but that's pointless, and a waste of time. It changes nothing about NAP itself, or its basis. You'll break a rule when you have to, and that's it. It's very simple. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and someone comes along and starts trying to force you to pay a ridiculous price for some water, then of course you'll do whatever you can to get some. But no sane, independent, objective "court" would punish you for that. For a clearer picture, start coming up with scenarios where you could adhere to the NAP with zero effort at all.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> You'll break a rule when you have to, and that's it. It's very simple. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and someone comes along and starts trying to force you to pay a ridiculous price for some water, then of course you'll do whatever you can to get some. But no sane, independent, objective "court" would punish you for that. Then the NAP is not the whole of the law, or necessarily even a useful starting point.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6871663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6871663
      - Nursie 13y ago
        I was already building a reply to that. What it seems to boil down to is "I know that I can't define my terms and I know that we don't agree about morality but god-dammit my one moral principle should still be the basis of everything". Needless to say, I disagree.

steveklabnik 13y ago

I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. > But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring to, exactly. But property is based on property rights, is it not? It makes no sense to think that you have no rights in the absence of a government. Think about it. If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? -Of course you would. Governments have nothing to do with that. >> If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless The statement means what it means, even if only as a sentence. But look, I already acknowledged that not everyone adheres to the NAP. That can't be helped now, and it probably can't be helped ever. But the number of people who aggress against others can sure be reduced through peaceful, sensible, consistent parenting, for example. The fact that not every single goddamn human being out there is good is not a reason to dismiss libertarian/free-market/anarchist ideas. You'll have to do way better than that, but ultimately, you'll find that reason, logic, and evidence should / can not be dismissed at all.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and let you make a claim first. >> This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. Which argument? "Think about it" doesn't constitute one, so it seems you wanted to quote something other than what you were supposedly addressing. That's kind of weird. >> There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.' Sure. It's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But is it worthwhile? Moral rules are not absolutes, but that's alright. The point is to get close enough, and there are often several sensible ways to view ideas, such as "property" for example. But bickering about the exact definitions of words your opponent happens to use is just a bullshit distraction, intentional or not. I've wasted way too much time on that road already. We both use and understand the English language just fine. There are no obstacles to our communication besides the ones intentionally put up.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      I did make a claim. The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless. You re-asserted a particular definition, and said 'think about it.' I don't find that to be particularly convincing.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless And I pointed out that you don't really need any specific definitions for "force" or "initiation" (and that bickering about the definitions for everyday words is a bullshit distraction). But suppose "force" meant "violence or coercion", and "to initiate" meant "to start" (there's no real confusion about that, at least). With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP?

21echoes 13y ago

the NAP is in effect. it's just me and you in the forest, and there's one apple tree. you "own" the apple tree. I am starving, and I "steal" an apple from your tree. who initiated the aggression?

anoncowherd 13y ago
There's no need to quibble about "lifeboat scenarios". You can come up with countless scenarios where there needs to be an "exception" to the NAP, but that's pointless, and a waste of time. It changes nothing about NAP itself, or its basis. You'll break a rule when you have to, and that's it. It's very simple. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and someone comes along and starts trying to force you to pay a ridiculous price for some water, then of course you'll do whatever you can to get some. But no sane, independent, objective "court" would punish you for that. For a clearer picture, start coming up with scenarios where you could adhere to the NAP with zero effort at all.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> You'll break a rule when you have to, and that's it. It's very simple. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and someone comes along and starts trying to force you to pay a ridiculous price for some water, then of course you'll do whatever you can to get some. But no sane, independent, objective "court" would punish you for that. Then the NAP is not the whole of the law, or necessarily even a useful starting point.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6871663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6871663
    - Nursie 13y ago
      I was already building a reply to that. What it seems to boil down to is "I know that I can't define my terms and I know that we don't agree about morality but god-dammit my one moral principle should still be the basis of everything". Needless to say, I disagree.