ProfessionalTeabagger

I don't know. I don't have to know that in order for my point to be correct.

Maybe they did. Free will exists with intelligence.

We can't know for sure but we can at least be pretty sure that a chicken or an ant or a slug or a trout doesn't have the capacity to have goals or make the choices required for achievement. They can't even understand the concept. But Not knowing how close some animals may be in their thinking to us doesn't say anything about the "universe" achieving. The only things we know to achieve anything are humans. The only things with free will are humans.

Homo Erectus and Neanderthal are classifications, not agents. Classifications can't achieve anything. I can't pat Homo erectus on the back for his/her achievements. Once you start applying achievement to outside agents you're talking about something different; something more general and colloquial. I'm sure the individuals among those intelligent groups like neanderthals DID achieves bits and bobs but not much. We don't know the minds of these transitional groups so you're asking question i can only speculate on.

What's the deeeal - with Staists?

I don't think so, no. Achievement involves choosing to overcome a significant challenge. Most if not all animals appear to be mindlessly following programming.

I don't know. Maybe not but what I do know is that non-conscious things cannot achieve.

Yeah, the conscious aspect called a person because that's what achieves, not the non-conscious matter of the universe.

I wouldn't give the universe credit as it did not achieve anything. You don't say "well done Nebula on looking very pretty today".

It doesn't mandate that. If you are offloading the cost of your clean-up onto others then your competition will see you doing it so they can off-load onto you. It makes no market sense to try to not pay for clean-up solutions. Competition actually mandates that YOU pay and the costs of your pollution accrue to you. What's even better about competition is that there will be a massive incentive to come up with new innovative, cheap ways to clean pollution. Capitalism = A clean Earth. I wouldn't say people don't give a damn about others. Look at how sympathetically masses react when there's a world tragedy. Most people desire a clean lush environment. Bjorn Lomborg's solution is estimated at around 9 billion dollars. The amount Americans personally gave in charity in the year 2014 was 335.17 billion. Over 30 times the cost of Lomborg's solutions and that's just America voluntarily giving. These facts I think you'll agree destroy any case that solutions could not get paid for.

Just listen to Stef's exact words and don't read anything into it.

The mistake here is that this notion presupposes determinism (no free will). It assumes that the other person's future events would be observable because the theory says two simultaneous events can be observed from a different temporal frame of reference. But the the properties of consciousness/free will are unique and the relativity theory is based on observations and experiments that are not part of consciousness. In other words, you assume the free will mind operates just like everything else when the naturalist free will theory says it doesn't and this is why you can't just extrapolate the properties of non-conscious matter to conscious matter. Also if if a person could theoretically observe events in another person's future then they could theoretically change them. That would mean any such events could not necessarily be fixed in the first place. BTW the idea that determinism is now uncontroversial in science is a falsehood. If you're going to state this then you need to prove it.

Well he's wrong because the government itself is still subject to exactly the same forces of "human nature". It's just special pleading. Great thinkers often get very lazy when faced with this question of government. We are all primed from a young age to overlook blatant contradictions around coercive authority.

Without freewill you have no control whatsoever over anything you do so fighting anything is logically impossible. Therefore your idea for fighting socialism is logically impossible. It would be like wind fighting rain. What's worse is that socialists often ARE determinists (no free will) and they use it as a justification for socialism. They argue that because no one is truly responsible and every unfortunate person is a victim of genetics/environment that's beyond their control then everyone should be taken care off through taxation. It's only fair. So your argument fails before you even finish making it and even if it didn't it fails on its own terms.

"Duress is - threats, violence, constraints, or other action used to coerce someone into doing something against their will or better judgement. IOW, coercion. Market competition by definition does not use coercion so it cannot be duress. ​Externalties are often positive too and market participants have to suffer others externalties. So it tends to balance out. What screws things up is governments. For example, the owners of a rain forest are far more likely to protect that resource and see it thrive than the socailist south American governments who will strip-mine it in order to get revenue to pay for socialist programs as so as they can get votes. People like Bjorn Lomborg have put forward simple and cheap counter-measures to any global warming but socialist won't hear of it. Socailists need a pretext to justify the violence they wish to use to achieve their world so they love global warming. As most people want a clean world and future for their children only anarcho-capitalism can deal with externalties because there are no rulers and no coercion in the economic realm ( a free market). That way resources can be allocated most efficiently and negative externalities will accrue to those who cause them. In socialism the opposite is true because everything is socialized and no one person is responsible. Because everyone owns everything NO ONE owns it and the one thing that tends to be true of humans is that we don't take good care of what we don't own.

As you would own the the property you'd have an incentive to maintain it's value. If you overwork it then you only survive in the short term and eventually you destroy your farm. The profit would likely be less than if you just sold the farm to someone who could run it better. Also your scenario exists in a vacuum because in the free market there are all sorts of traditions and contracts that prevent these things. Under communism the farmer would not really own his farm (it would ultimately belong to "the workers" and he may have to give some of it to "the entitled") so he would have little incentive to maintain it. It's a fact that humans take much less care of what they do not own. So the tragedy of the commons is NOT an example of market competition. It is an example of collectivism. The commons.

"Land" is not really that evident and much of what you might call "land" may be man-made or shaped by man. If you can have destroyed/despoiled land then you can have improved / enhanced land, right? So it's not just all some raw natural resource. I think that's what you're calling "capital" "; which is confusing as it may not be capital in the general sense of the word (assets to be used in the production of goods/services). So I'm going to call it property because that's accurate. This right to possess, utilize and derive fruits from land does not mean you own it. That just means you happened to have enclosed it in order to use it. But you appear to be saying land cannot be owned at all because no one made it, right? Capital or property does not "spring forth". I know that seems nit-picky but socialists tend to use this language of the Earth providing magically. The ability of someone to use their "land" IS of concern to others because it's others misfortune when they have to work or pay to fix it or clean it up. Rights come with responsibilities. The car analogy doesn't work because according to you the car is not land. If it was then by your same standard everyone would have a right to car. I'm not arguing that it would be imposing for the person not to produce for you. I was responding to your claim that those who are born later are being imposed upon because they didn't consent to the land acquisition in question. But they also didn't consent to NOT acquiring the land (they didn't consent or not consent to anything). So by your standard NOT acquiring the land would ALSO be an imposition. IOW, if you do it you're imposing and if you don't you're imposing. See? In your Island example it's true that the new children did not consent to the previous people owning X amount of land but they also did not consent to them NOT owning it. In fact I'm sure the children would be glad their parents own the land. If mixing your labor only entitles you to the property and not the land then the property cannot be owned is it is at some point part of the land. Sometimes the raw land BECOMES the property. A farmer can transform useless land into fertile land? If a new person comes along and claims their share do they get the fertility along with the raw land or does the great farmer have to work to return that part of the land back to uselessness. There are so many ways this breaks down logically not to mention practically. Sorry but we're not talking about a Gaia entity handing out things equally. This is the socialist projection of childhood childhood (were everyone gets an equal share and we have to make room if a new baby comes along, etc) on to the world. That's not reality. You are conflating equality with fairness. Fairness is not equality. You have no inherent right to some equal portion of "land", nor do you have some inherent right to acquire the land of someone else who's earned ownership simply because you also happen to exist. The world is not your parents. Land is NOT free. In order for something to be free is has to be a value you received in exchange for no significant labor/time. But land is not a value until you make it one. In fact it's often a dis-value as there's plenty of land you definitely DON'T want. Your last argument was a justification for theft based on this arbitrary declaration of equal land distribution and as such it also fails. You're not entitled. We didn't give birth to you, your parents did. They owe you, we don't.

Yeah. People will voluntarily agree to a "tax" but refuse to make it voluntary.

You need to define "land". A 6th level apartment could be "land". Technically cyberspace could be called "land" as people can occupy it and turn it into real value. What does "right to it" mean? A right to what? Stand on it? Work it? Exclude others from it? Poison and destroy it? How are all acquisitions at the expense of another man's potential of owning it? People can buy or rent the land or buy the products of the land (which is the the same as owning part of it). In fact you are often better off NOT owning the land. How are all men capable of owning land? Many men are barely capable of ownership of their own bodies. How does it "stand" that because those who were born later are being imposed on? When you live in a house do you feel imposed upon that the land was used without your consent? NOT owning the land without your consent ALSO deprives you of the produce of that land. So either way you would be imposing; which makes your notion contradictory. Iow, if you do it you're imposing and if you don't you're imposing. Personally I would rather be born into a world were every single inch of land is already owned than into a world were little of it is owned. That way the land is already producing value and I can more easily acquire it through a voluntary exchange of value. Your theory of what is just with regards to land ownership is a complete logical mess. I think your problem and that of most socialists is that you think "land" is free.

Nope. You can't agree to the tax for yourself (as it would no longer be a tax but a voluntary payment) so you can't agree to it for others. The land owner being taxed would also have to tax the community for the land the occupy with their homes.

Who cares? In the virtually impossible event that your particular version is proven true what's going to happen? I'll tell you what; Fucking nothing. It doesn't matter because this version of events is not worse than the official version. It's just a waste of time.

What an insulting post, devoid of reason or evidence. There's nothing rational to respond to so you can be dismissed out of hand.

You asked me WHY accept it, not an argument for why it was valid. The reason it's correct is because if you violate you will be unable to rational justify the action. Violating the NAP means initiating force. Be definition the initiation of force cannot be justified. Any attempt to justify it collapses into insurmountable contradiction. Therefore any violation of the NAP cannot be justified. When it comes to self interest YOU don't know what you're talking about, not me. Subjective preference having objective consequences is irrelevant. It's still subjective preference and as such cannot be objectively right or wrong. It's just preference. I don't know what the hell "Self interest can be right or wrong because existence is what Nature selects for." means. It's horseshit.

Because it's correct. It's doesn't matter if you accept it or not. If you violate it you are wrong. Objectively wrong. Self interest can't be right or wrong so it's meaningless. It's just subjective preference.

Actually I DO know what I'm talking about. The NAP HAS reasoning and no one here just accepts it without asking "why?". You are simply making rude assumptions about us and insulting me and everyone else who has put forward reasoning for the NAP. Stop doing it or leave. Thanks for your opinion about those things. What has this got to do with whether or not the NAP is just a rule of thumb as you claim? No, I get it; YOU don't. Here's how this forum works. When someone makes a valid argument against you, you respond to that argument. You DO NOT ignore that argument and then repeat your original statement as if your opponent said nothing. I just rebutted the above statement by pointing out that it's fallacious to argue that the NAP or any rational principle is not valid because someone might violate it. Do you get it now?