dsayers

Show your work. You need to define NAP (since it's shorthand) and then show how it is false. You've made a provocative statement while offering no rigor. Shame on you. I encourage others not to take the bait.

Sure there is. You're perpetuating focus on who sits on the throne instead of focusing on the legitimacy of that throne. You're giving a nod to aggression and the idea that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories. And wasting your time when you are better than most at using that time focusing on things that are helpful to us all.

"No point in conversing any further... [much more conversing]" Perhaps the idea of manipulation came out of thin air

The implication being that if you ask a question of somebody, they MUST answer. Your proposition is unethical. And you've deflected from your moving of the goalposts by not addressing it, the very thing you accused me of doing. Knock yourself out with the downvotes. It won't alter the truth value of any objective claim I make.

Moving the goalposts? I thought your issue was with free riders. Now you're talking about religiosity. What gives?

Doubling down. Didn't see that coming @Eclectic: Once again, that which happens after something has no bearing on that something's identity. Whether I alter my behavior or not has no bearing on the fact that telling somebody what they're going to do is manipulative. It's the underhanded behavior of somebody who understands that their "arguments" cannot stand on their own merit. Your epidermis is showing. @Mr. Torbald: Enjoy your free upvote. Stupid touchscreen... Putting words into a person's mouth is an expression. It is something that you do in your own mind. Or when you publish it, put it down for others to see. Your attempt at doing so doesn't actually change what I've said, which is why I easily point it out as such. So to reference it as if that IS what it means is again erecting a strawman to pretend as if you've knocked something down. It's little more than mental masturbation and I am immune to it.

Indeed it does. This is why it is so troubling seeing people waste so much time trying to effect a result they literally can't. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You cannot use logic, reason, and evidence to talk somebody out of a position they didn't arrive at by way of those vehicles. Also, a criticism if I may. If logic, reason, and evidence are your tools and the truth is your goal, there is no personal investment in a discussion. If you think 2+2=5 and I prove that 2+2=4, I have not won. I think approaching/addressing a discussion from a win/lose perspective ensures a "lose." If you are unable to convince somebody, it's not that you've lost. And if you can get somebody to relinquish falsehoods in favor of truth, THEY have won, not you. Taking personal investment out of it is hugely liberating and makes it easier to stay focused and not get distracted. At least that's my take. My most sophisticated abuser is fantastic at deflection. So it could be that staying focused being so important is merely my bias. I've just noticed how much people who are incorrect will use obfuscation to adhere to their position.

Deflection. This post does nothing to change the fact that you put words into my mouth in an attempt to prove "me" wrong by proving YOUR WORDS wrong. You did this in response to an in-thread tangent that began with WasatchMan's assertion that lying is not ethical, not anything OP said. Please start from the beginning of the thread and follow the progression of the discussion before just jumping in with strawmen and deflections. Thank you.

Strawman. What was ACTUALLY said is that lying is not the initiation of the use of force.

So what you're saying is that you have a conclusion that you need to be true and to hell with logic, reason, and evidence. You know full well that a person cannot make 2+2=5 just by speaking it. A lie does not act upon anybody or alter reality. ...is not the same as lying. People have different definitions of fraud. The definition by which somebody does not fulfill a contract IS the initiation of the use of force. More here. Coercion requires a credible threat, which cannot be established by words alone.

The stronger person only has to resist BECAUSE it is binding upon him. To measure if something is binding upon somebody, you have to test avoidability. If person A pushes person B REGARDLESS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STRENGTHS, person B cannot NOT be being pushed by person A. Therefore pushing is a behavior that is binding upon another person. What comes after the push has no and could have no bearing on the identity of the push itself.

Show your work please. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

To exchange value for value is just. This is a useful guideline in terms of FDR podcasts for example, which are released freely. In terms of an actual exchange, consent and the terms need to be determined in advance. In some contexts, "take" could be viewed as doing so without consent.

You said this already. And then I said, "In order for this to be true, you would have to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am. Since this cannot be universalized, it is clearly false." If you tell me that 2+2=5, the onus is on me for accepting what you told me without verifying it for myself. You would have to be more responsible for my decisions than I am. If you can prove this, then you can say that lying is the initiation of the use of force. You saying that 2+2=5 isn't binding upon anybody else and binding upon somebody else without their consent is the measure for the initiation of the use of force.

Here, I mean that the only meaningful way to divide people... see above. To provide arbitrary division only serves to distract people from this truth. Which is how we end up at a point where you wonder the extent someone can resist the initiation of the use of force to achieve their goals. If they are educated as to the truth of property rights, then they become responsible for such immorality. Your attempt at categorizations will not bring people closer to this understanding, but could serve to take them farther away by pretending that there is more than one way to meaningfully categorize people.

Can you define evil? I see it as being digital (the deliberate violation of property rights), so I don't think the phrase "less evil" makes sense. I don't think this is true. Freedom doesn't involve enumeration. The enumeration is the forceful infringement of freedom. You and I are free to chat here. We don't have to form something called the FDR Union in order to do this.

In order for this to be true, you would have to prove that you are more responsible for my decisions than I am. Since this cannot be universalized, it is clearly false.

You didn't have to. It is the premise of the thread you are posting in as evidenced by the opening post. My claim is true of people. Animals are not a subset of persons. You're conflating too much here. The capability of reason is a requisite of property rights/person. Once that is established, THEN the deliberate use of one's body is then a demonstration of property rights (which was my claim). I apologize for my ambiguity. That the framing of the thread was exclusive to persons, I didn't think that understanding one's actions made one responsible for them would be a controversial position. In fact, as I sit here trying to think of how to explain it, it seems axiomatic to me. Animals operate on biological imperative alone. Humans as a species have the capacity for reason. That is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore, a human is responsible for their deliberate actions. They own themselves. The premise of "persons dominating in the absence of property rights" is internally inconsistent was all I intended to contribute to the thread. I have yet to see OP revise his initial premise or otherwise discard the inquiry as invalid.

You said that. And then I said "This is true. However, the point of contention wasn't what animals would do in the absence of property rights." The question was about people, so the capability of reason was assumed. There is nothing productive in pointing out that the capability of reason is a requisite since "people" denotes as much. OP essentially said, "Suppose a world without cars. What would a Ford Focus cost?" I've merely pointed out that a Ford Focus is a car. If you want to entertain a world without cars, you cannot then assume a car. Just as you cannot suppose a world without property rights and then assume property rights.

Which is precisely why I went on to point out the only thing that can be accomplished only by way of violence and the ways in which it is lazy to not pursue them. To give this post its own merit, I would also point out that this would be allowing them to favor utility (subjective) over morality (objective).

Anybody that suggests that falsehood is superior to truth is saying, "It is true that..." It's a performative contradiction. Why would you want to placate the irrational or be the instrument by which truth is suppressed to allow falsehoods/irrationality to flourish? THEY should be the ones consulting irrationality echo chambers asking how to spout irrationality in a way that won't attract the attention of people who have the courage and integrity to adhere to the truth.

This is true. However, the point of contention wasn't what animals would do in the absence of property rights. This is no different from Lars's point that people can reject reality. The fact that we can act irrationally doesn't alter the truth value of the objective claim that 2+2=4. Just as to does not alter the truth value of the objective claim that the act of domination requires property rights to be valid.

This is precisely why it's important to educate people and NOT obfuscate the truth with meaningless categorizations.

Virtuous love.

For the same reason people who lack hunting skills don't die out: division of labor and technological evolution.