5 ms·

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

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.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> I know that we don't agree about morality but god-dammit my one moral principle should still be the basis of everything Ah yes, "we just disagree on morality" is a classic avoidance-technique for a Statist that refuses to accept reality. But actually, no we don't. Not if you're sane and not a sociopath. We've both got a conscience, and it usually warns us when we're doing something even somewhat wrong.
        Nursie 13y ago
        >> But actually, no we don't. Not if you're sane and not a sociopath. Ah yes, "if you disagree with my interpretation of morality you must be a sociopath" is a classic avoidance technique for a libertarian that refuses to accept reality. >> We've both got a conscience, and it usually warns us when we're doing something even somewhat wrong. Not everyone's conscience tells them the same thing, neither does everyone's conscience tell them that the NAP is the root rule of the universe. Even yours doesn't as you've admitted in a variety of places.
- 21echoes 13y ago
  my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. to be a true libertarian, you can't believe in property rights.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. Nope. Our "rights" are an idea, but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights. In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone and starts running away, you have the right to try and stop him because he has no right to take your property. It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.
    - 21echoes 13y ago
      > "intuitive morality" > It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it. there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem. to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let it sink in. Do I have to repeat myself? "Property is force" is a nice little distraction, and I've been through this with someone else before. Really, property is not "use of force" even though defending it may require some. But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.

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.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> I know that we don't agree about morality but god-dammit my one moral principle should still be the basis of everything Ah yes, "we just disagree on morality" is a classic avoidance-technique for a Statist that refuses to accept reality. But actually, no we don't. Not if you're sane and not a sociopath. We've both got a conscience, and it usually warns us when we're doing something even somewhat wrong.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> But actually, no we don't. Not if you're sane and not a sociopath. Ah yes, "if you disagree with my interpretation of morality you must be a sociopath" is a classic avoidance technique for a libertarian that refuses to accept reality. >> We've both got a conscience, and it usually warns us when we're doing something even somewhat wrong. Not everyone's conscience tells them the same thing, neither does everyone's conscience tell them that the NAP is the root rule of the universe. Even yours doesn't as you've admitted in a variety of places.
21echoes 13y ago
my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. to be a true libertarian, you can't believe in property rights.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. Nope. Our "rights" are an idea, but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights. In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone and starts running away, you have the right to try and stop him because he has no right to take your property. It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.
  - 21echoes 13y ago
    > "intuitive morality" > It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it. there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem. to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let it sink in. Do I have to repeat myself? "Property is force" is a nice little distraction, and I've been through this with someone else before. Really, property is not "use of force" even though defending it may require some. But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.