3 ms·

>> Therein lies the problem though, even if we accept the NAP, we can never agree on what is force or violence and what is the initiation of force No it doesn'

>> Therein lies the problem though, even if we accept the NAP, we can never agree on what is force or violence and what is the initiation of force No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Complaining that the definitions of everyday words are unclear is just a bullshit distraction. If that were the case, we simply could not communicate at all. >> Actually I value pragmatism and social utility well over consistency when it comes to my society. Yes, well, now we're in the territory of collectivist thinking, which is just completely ass-backwards considering we're all just individuals, not part of The Borg. Collectivism is one of the supporting pillars of States. We're bombarded with the idea that we must all be subject to a ruling class for the common good, that we need to pay taxes to help poor people, and so on. And before you go there, wanting to keep your property does not mean you want poor people to die. You just want everyone's property rights to be respected. >> If a society is entirely rational based on a narrow vision of rational morality but ends up worse for the majority of people than one that is morally corrupt from top to bottom... well you'll find me in Corruptopia. In case you haven't noticed, you already find yourself in Corruptopia. Seriously, dude. Bailouts ring a bell? Campaign contributions (=bribes), etc? You know your politicians are thoroughly corrupt and lie just about every time they open their mouths, and you insist on holding on to that? >> But we should definitely aim for one that respects your morals (property rights) over anyone else's (equal access to land, food etc) ? Not "over" anyone else's. Obviously, everyone has the exact same rights as everyone else. That means no one is allowed to take my property, and I'm not allowed to take anyone else's property. It all works out just fine. Oh, and rights can't be in conflict - that would break our notion of rights. Just like black is black and not white at the same time, the right to take someone's property cannot exist while people have the right to keep their property. Get it? >> Yup, in some circumstances. For instance if your property is radioactive and near my house. There are many other exceptions as you yourself have mentioned. The obvious answer was "no", and that's enough. We're not talking about edge cases here, because there are countless, and wading through them is pointless. There are even more circumstances where it takes zero effort to adhere to the NAP. Here's a good rule of thumb: any time you don't want to aggress against anyone, you'll automatically adhere to the NAP, and if you're sane, you'll realize that this is pretty much all the time. See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. That just can't be required. As mentioned, the best we can do is "close enough", and the NAP certainly is. >> non-violent pacifists and never, ever punch someone in the face for saying something they don't like about their girl (for instance). Right, and what fucking sense does it make to physically assault someone for saying something bad about you or your girlfriend? Insecure much? Feeling violent? >> I'm sorry, but you start with an ill-defined premise (the NAP), admit there are hundreds of holes or grey areas, and then try to tell us that we should build our entire moral outlook and society on it anyway. It's rather funny really. Dude. You haven't got much to go by here. See above. You know that the NAP works just fine. Besides, when you say "we should build our entire moral outlook and society on it", who exactly is that we you refer to? What should we do? What should you do? Who's anyone to tell you what you should do, as long as you don't harm others? You're thinking in collectivist terms again, which is understandable, since we've all been brainwashed to think like that. But you need to wake up and realize that we're not The Borg. We're not parts of some collective consciousness. We're all just individuals, and make our individual choices. Choices have consequences, and everyone is responsible for his own.

Nursie 13y ago
>> No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Complaining that the definitions of everyday words are unclear is just a bullshit distraction. If that were the case, we simply could not communicate at all. It is indeed very hard to communicate with people like yourself who insist on seeing everything as violence and aggression, but we must try. And we absolutely can (and do) disagree about definitions. Have you never heard the old socialist line "all property is theft"? Now if I understand you correctly, theft is a form of violence, so to some people property itself is a problem of violence and aggression. >> Yes, well, now we're in the territory of collectivist thinking, which is just completely ass-backwards considering we're all just individuals, not part of The Borg. And we all live on a shared planet and all of our actions impact on other people, you do not live on an asteroid with no other people around. Get over it. >> Collectivism is one of the supporting pillars of States. We're bombarded with the idea that we must all be subject to a ruling class for the common good, that we need to pay taxes to help poor people, and so on. Nobody I know says you must be subject to a ruling class, though many do say we must be subject to a set of rules that we come up with collectively. Many of them may be covered by NAP, many are not. Otherwise I don't disagree - taxes are generally a good thing, though we should fight inefficiency where we can. And I speak as an earner in one of the 1% highest earning households in my country. >> In case you haven't noticed, you already find yourself in Corruptopia. I know, right? And just look at us! Highest standards of living in the world and highest standards of living in history! And look at those places where there's little or no government, they collapse into tribalism, violence, warlords and total social decay! Corruptopia is pretty sweet right? I'll not deny we have problems (it's Corruptopia after all), but not the sort that I see being solved by adherence to a bizarre, simplistic and flawed moral (non-)axiom. >> The obvious answer was "no", and that's enough. We're not talking about edge cases here, because there are countless, and wading through them is pointless. There are even more circumstances where it takes zero effort to adhere to the NAP. No, the obvious answer, and the one you explicitly agreed with is that it depends on the circumstances. It's almost as if there were other moral principles at work that you allow to override your NAP from time to time. How odd! >> See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. That just can't be required. As mentioned, the best we can do is "close enough", and the NAP certainly is. A rule that is as full of holes as that, as disputed in definition, is not a good rule to use as the basis of society. >> See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. If no moral rule can cover every possible situation then how about we don't try and structure society about one rule eh? >> Right, and what fucking sense does it make to physically assault someone for saying something bad about you or your girlfriend? Insecure much? Feeling violent? Me, no, but you said everyone knows it's wrong. I was giving the counterpoint that pop-culture is filled with violence and aggression, even amongst the 'good guys'. >> You know that the NAP works just fine. I know that it's not the be-all and end-all of the basis for a good society. >> Who's anyone to tell you what you should do, as long as you don't harm others? Where the line of harming others starts is entirely subjective. A lot of people deny the anthropogenic global warming/climate change is real, and so continue to wantonly fill the air with greenhouse gasses. They don't see it as harming anyone yet scientifically speaking they are harming everyone for multiple generations. It's just not as simple as you like to think, and the results of a balanced mix of property rights and collectivism has so far resulted in the best societies the planet has ever seen. Sorry if I seem reluctant to throw that away based on a platitude.

Nursie 13y ago

>> No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Complaining that the definitions of everyday words are unclear is just a bullshit distraction. If that were the case, we simply could not communicate at all. It is indeed very hard to communicate with people like yourself who insist on seeing everything as violence and aggression, but we must try. And we absolutely can (and do) disagree about definitions. Have you never heard the old socialist line "all property is theft"? Now if I understand you correctly, theft is a form of violence, so to some people property itself is a problem of violence and aggression. >> Yes, well, now we're in the territory of collectivist thinking, which is just completely ass-backwards considering we're all just individuals, not part of The Borg. And we all live on a shared planet and all of our actions impact on other people, you do not live on an asteroid with no other people around. Get over it. >> Collectivism is one of the supporting pillars of States. We're bombarded with the idea that we must all be subject to a ruling class for the common good, that we need to pay taxes to help poor people, and so on. Nobody I know says you must be subject to a ruling class, though many do say we must be subject to a set of rules that we come up with collectively. Many of them may be covered by NAP, many are not. Otherwise I don't disagree - taxes are generally a good thing, though we should fight inefficiency where we can. And I speak as an earner in one of the 1% highest earning households in my country. >> In case you haven't noticed, you already find yourself in Corruptopia. I know, right? And just look at us! Highest standards of living in the world and highest standards of living in history! And look at those places where there's little or no government, they collapse into tribalism, violence, warlords and total social decay! Corruptopia is pretty sweet right? I'll not deny we have problems (it's Corruptopia after all), but not the sort that I see being solved by adherence to a bizarre, simplistic and flawed moral (non-)axiom. >> The obvious answer was "no", and that's enough. We're not talking about edge cases here, because there are countless, and wading through them is pointless. There are even more circumstances where it takes zero effort to adhere to the NAP. No, the obvious answer, and the one you explicitly agreed with is that it depends on the circumstances. It's almost as if there were other moral principles at work that you allow to override your NAP from time to time. How odd! >> See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. That just can't be required. As mentioned, the best we can do is "close enough", and the NAP certainly is. A rule that is as full of holes as that, as disputed in definition, is not a good rule to use as the basis of society. >> See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. If no moral rule can cover every possible situation then how about we don't try and structure society about one rule eh? >> Right, and what fucking sense does it make to physically assault someone for saying something bad about you or your girlfriend? Insecure much? Feeling violent? Me, no, but you said everyone knows it's wrong. I was giving the counterpoint that pop-culture is filled with violence and aggression, even amongst the 'good guys'. >> You know that the NAP works just fine. I know that it's not the be-all and end-all of the basis for a good society. >> Who's anyone to tell you what you should do, as long as you don't harm others? Where the line of harming others starts is entirely subjective. A lot of people deny the anthropogenic global warming/climate change is real, and so continue to wantonly fill the air with greenhouse gasses. They don't see it as harming anyone yet scientifically speaking they are harming everyone for multiple generations. It's just not as simple as you like to think, and the results of a balanced mix of property rights and collectivism has so far resulted in the best societies the planet has ever seen. Sorry if I seem reluctant to throw that away based on a platitude.