Naddrin Kentlar

isn't it normal that when a model is presented along the words, 'general', 'universal', 'aboslute' people will try to find weak points in it. It is merely a metod of proof. Refuting the nitpicks with 'yay, yet another lifeboat scenario', or 'this would never happen' will only leave someone stunned in apoplexy after such a grandiose presentation. Newton understood there's an issue with his work on physics because he couldn't really make gravity fit in. It didn't however make his work any less valuable. I doubt people would try to nitpick it if it didn't claim 'infailability'. Just plain and simple present it as a better system, that works in a lot of cases, and doesn't work in other cases. And people should really be friggin sure about what they say when they start claiming 'universality', 'general', 'absolute'

Nope, it just means that one cannot live a life upholding the NAP in a pure unfaltered way. It just means that NAP is also a matter on how people around you see it. While I can see people staring at me as a violation of NAP, because it creates distress to me, if I live along peers that do not feel the same way it isn't. If however everyone around me sees that 'staring at people' as a violation of NAP, then it might get enforced or somethin.

I think in regards to the NAP we have to look at intent. So if I push you and you smash into a wall, that would violate the NAP. But if I push you and you smash into a wall, but you were about to get hit by a car then I have just saved you. If you are walking down the street and I stab you and run off, that would violate the NAP. If you are walking down the street and I stab you because your appendix was about to burst and I'm a trained doctor, then I have just saved you. So intent is important. So what about pollution? If I start a camp fire on my property to keep warm and all the smoke blows over to your property and you breathe it in and it makes you pass out then we have to determine my intent. If my intent was to harm you, then I have clearly violated the NAP. But what about if my intent was only to keep warm? Have I violated the NAP? intent ? ... I really don't think you want to go there. 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions' has some bit of truth in it. Every atrocity we know of in history had some 'good intentions' behind. Gulags, concentration camps, wars, taxes. I don't really belive that there exists someone that wakes up in the morning and thinks. 'Hey ... today I'll do this evil despicable thing, just because it's evil' Even to some psycho serial killers there's good intent from their twisted point of view for their murders. PS: If I intend to kill my ex-wife that is using the state to extract alimony money from me. Is it good intent or bad intent ? Is definitely an overreaction .... but the intention I could argue is a good one, since I'm defending my property.

Somehow the only valid rebuttal to the point was number 4, where pointing out that fraud is actually theft, wich is a breach of contract, and therefore enforceable. Point number 1 the polution, he starts by admiting that 'hey if I lock someone in the garage and pollute it's a violation of NAP', but stops at that ... when does the 'garage' stops beeing a 'garage'. When it's a city, continent, entire planet ?. Then he starts ranting about benefits of polution for a society, wich makes sense and is logical, but it's entirely off topic ... it was pollution vs NAP, not how will pollution be managed in a free society. Point number 3 was misunderstood because the author failed to mention the fact that one doesn't see the revolver to his head. Then it was easy to transform it into a bable about how risk is managed into a free society. The topic was not risk management in a free society, but rather risk and NAP. And the rest of the points were 'rebutted' by saying .... YAD (you are a dick), because you think like that. And that would never happen in a free society. Wich looks very much like an ad hominem argumentation. Only mentally deranged person would think like that, therefore NAP is valid ??? I mean wtf kind of argumentation is that ? And biology is not an exact science. In what year do you live ?. That was the case in 1800s. But the more we learn about the DNA, the more accurate it becomes.

well there's where my confusion comes from, The property rights and NAP are sacred, yet I can't really find a definition for the property rights. And there are a lot of aberations that arise when testing scenarios that try to incorporate both. and also keep in mind that owner of property is free to change his mind on how will he use that property.

I'm a bit confused. on one side: - You can't claim the land without altering it and making something prodoctive out of it. So by extension someone can't just say hey this continent is now mine (private property) and I want to let it be without human interaction to just preserve it' on the other side: - The enviromentalist should buy the land that he wants preserved, and put his money where his words are. And the question is ? From who does the enviromentalist should buy the land from ? And If he let's it untouched by human hands wouldn't that be considered abandoned ?

the problem with 'social contract' is that people think that when they buy land in a state's perimeter they really belive it's 'property' while it's actual 'rent' that they pay through taxes. another problem is that it's a contract where one side has the power to change the terms at will. A landlord can decide to build a new elevator shaft through your rented apartment, and reducing your living space, and then also charge you by increasing the rent because the building now has an elevator, even if you personally live at the ground floor and have absolutely no need for an elevator. You can take it, or leave it. it's a matter of value where both parties gain. The core of the capitalist principle. The state gets a slave, while you get somewere to live. If I'm the person that sells you water in the middle of the desert with 5000$ a bottle, we both gain by that principle. So the state sais .. here's this evil deal, take it or leave it. You have freedom to chose. also there's an issue with monopoly power. You won't see many Apple devices beeing sold in Microsoft stores. Because Microsoft will say .. hey this is my place I do however I feel, and I have no need for competition inside my perimeter.

The issue is actually property rights and force. And having both property rights and NAP in my opinion is like having your cake and eating it too. I myself been searching this forum extensively for a concept of property rights, but all fail fundamentally when you try to combine them with the NAP. How I understand Stefan is defining property rights while trying to maintain the NAP is that. 'If I plant a seed, because of my work the tree is mine, and I can then deny other people access to the tree'. But he fails to mention how he got the seed, and what made that seed his. Or how would he be more entitled to that seed, or piece of land then someone else, or someone that is born 3 generations later. there's an extensive topic i've read where a lot of arguments I could come out and say have been already debated. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/3351.aspx?PageIndex=1 so it's rather pointless bringging it up again. it's also funny to hear the preaching that 'emergency ethics' never happen. While they're the stripped down of all the white noise so one could understand better a concept, They do happen. tell it to the people that died on Titanic that 'emergency ethics' don't happen. Or to the people that when in dire situations resolve to canibalism. One coul'd care very little about the NAP, if the only thing I could eat is someone else . Can you really say that the one that initiated force in that situation was immoral ?. (Ukraine anyone) I also find it funny how theese principles about humans are stated as universals. But it's a different kind of universality. If you try to apply them 200 years ago they don't work. If you try to apply them today they don't work. The only way they do work is in 100 years or more where the humans are changed and no longer resemble the humans today in behavior.

1. It depends how it would be cheaper to get the resources they control. 2. Yes would be legal to compete with it. One should start to compete by finding it's own natives to steal their land, or some weaker nation to take over. I doubt there will be someone out there that would say, here's some land you can do whatever you want with it, and I you're extempt from aggression. Land is a limited resource, and noone would relinquish control over it, just because it makes sense. 3. Yes, if that group can defend that land from agression. 4. Yes. 5. Theoretically yes. But only viable if everyone around you belives in NAP. 6. none 7. Because there's limited resources in the world, and subsidies try to break the dependence of a nation on other nation's resources. Think Germany that subsidizes heavily green energy. Someone might think that they're eco friendly, some other might think that they're trying to break free from the dependency of Russian resources. 8. yes 9. Do you have any land ? 10. Does the mafia have any land ? Because mafia, by my knowledge only exploits internal weakness of the state.

Naddrin, No. Don't confuse causality with determinism. Influence and Fate are not the same thing! You can influence your computer to send a reply. You cannot guarantee it. oky then maybe I am seeing things wrong (i'm kinda frustrated because I feel like everyone else is able to see the 'truth' while I can't because my mental abilities are subpar). So I'm gonna take this slow and break it into subproblems, to try to find where I'm making a mistake in my thought process. first I'm gonna try to lay out the context to make sure we're speaking about the same thing. According to the dictionary: free will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention determinism: a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws are theese definitions wrong ? if so then we might be speaking about different things. It's like arguing math while one person thinks in base 2, and the other in base 10. 1+1=10, 1+1=2 they're both right in theyr context, but totally wrong in the other person pov.

actually I'm curious how do you come to this line of reasoning ? "Attack is more expensive then defense" If both of us have 1000$. I have to attack an objective, and you have to defend it. You need to spread that 1000$ thin over an long period of time, camera's, security guards, maintenance to defenses, while I can concentrate all my money on one single decisive attack. And the most important factor in this hypothesis is that the attacker has the freedom to choose when he attacks, while the defender has to defend 100% all the time. The analogy with the US army in Iraq, is rather weak, because the US Army attacked only for like 3 weeks when the war started, and they won. After that they are trying to control Iraq, and defend it from the insurgents, that's kinda why it's expensive for the US, while the costs for the insurgents to attack is rather minimal. If the US wouldn't of cared much about controling Iraq, they could've just eradicated the population and reduce the costs of defense dramatically. So it would basically mean something trying to control an unwilling population becomes quite expensive in the long run. Not the 'attack vs defense' costs.

and it basicaly boils down to this. Land is a limited resource, and a group of people have monopoly on it and they don't want to share ?. Sounds familiar ?

oky pointing out a few things about Stef's video's about determinism. from my understanding Stef is actually a determinist. If not then: - Child abuse wouldn't have any influence on how a child grows, since the human has free will then it wouldn't affect him how it was raised. - Bullies are just mean kids, since they have free will, and Steff claims that human beeings are inherently good, then the bullies are just evil. Unless you want to go into the murky area where abused children are no longer humans, and no longer have free will. Stefan asks what would change if someone changes from a free will to a determinist view of things. THIS -> you stop blaming the person for his actions, and start looking at the causes that lead him to that action. and this is applicable to anything you dislike about the society. But as far as I'm aware Stefan already does that. Stefan's second thing with determinism is: How can you explain virtue, vice, and is a person really guilty if it's predetermined ? if you look from one individual's point of view yeah again you meddle in murky waters as things make little sense without free will. if you look however at the humanity as an ORGANISM, with governed by one single rule (IT TRYS TO LIVE) then all of theese make sense. - suicide is bad, because you lower the ORGANISM's ability to live. - murder is bad, because you lower the ORGANISM's ability to live. - you put away a murderer, not because he's evil or 'really responsable' (in a predetermined universe), you put him away because he's lowering the ORGANISM's ability to live. - selfsacrifice exists, because you rise the ORGANISM's as a whole the ability to live. - love exsists as a simple way to protect the ORGANISM's ability to live. - why there's this heated talk about this, or just about anything that's debatable atheism/religion, statism/anarchy? we're merely bouncing ideeas between ourselves, because we 'feel' there's room for improvment in our society, but the end goal is actually finding a way to rise the ability of the ORGANISM to live. wich translated to us the simpletons means, better lifes for us, means better the ability of the ORGANISM to live. also an interesting read: Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

And who would own it, if everyone had these generators? (Because by that logic that would also mean, that everyone who has a knive would own everyone else, because basically everyone is able to stab someone in their sleep) yeah, perhaps I've been a bit too anxious to take a few leaps. . Property only exist if it can be enforced. The moment you can destroy something without caring about the consequences from your peers, or you can bypass those consequences, you own that thing, or person.

one could define having property of something is actually beeing able to destroy that something. If I would have a black hole generator in my basement, I could say, I own the solar system, and also tax it.