labmath2

I prefer not to discuss my personal life, but i will point out the argument as i see it before me, maybe that will help. If your action does no damage to me or my property, then i cannot use violence against you X is your action and it does no damage to me Therefore, i cannot use violence against you. X=playing loud music. Now i will rephrase the argument in the second statement form. If your action does no damage to me or my property, then i cannot use violence against you Playing loud music causes me to loose sleep and loose hours at work (damage to me) therefore, i am entitled to compensation for the lost wages under civil law. Is this the argument as Josh puts it or am i mistaken?

The difficulty for me is how you can request compensation for aesthetically bad action.

Unless i am mistaken, that example involves neither accident nor negligence. It will be easier if we start from the moment you find the music disruptive, are you allowed to require them to reduce the sound or stop playing the music? If they do not comply can you use force against them? I think this is the point Phuein was trying to make by saying "aggression" is subject to interpretation.

If it is the case that one only has a moral right to ask for compensation if an immoral act was committed against them (violation of NAP), then playing loud music has gone from aesthetically bad to immoral in the example highlighted above.

This video explains why things should be universalized but actually does little to explain many of the nuances that make understanding UPB difficult. Of course things should be universalized so that no one gets a stick while someone else gets a carrot.

I think in most of the responses to this analogy, people incorrectly assume the owner is asking how much are you willing to pay for the bracelet. In fact, the actual question is What is the bracelet worth? After the sale you could find out the bracelet is worth $1000 by normal standards and you would not have sold your bracelet at that price had you known this fact. Are you allowed to go back and demand the sale be undone since the buyer did not tell you what the bracelet is normally worth, but what he was wiling to pay for it?

I find it interesting that someone quite well respected on this forum has taken this position. To me fraud is just one of these types of crimes that requires either the victim or others to freely and willingly engage the perpetrator for the crime to occur. There are also things like defamation, misinformation, e.t.c I wonder if you think the same concept applies to these areas as well?

Number 1 is an axiom. The problem is that Stefan does not clearly state all the axioms in the book. You have to assume what the arguments are and what the axioms are. P.S there are lots of axioms in UPB.

I was attempting to represent an idea in the article. So what is the answer to the anarchist's second objection? If we desire peace and prosperity, there is no other route to it than discovering the rational meaning of Natural Law, and then convincing one's fellow man of it. And just as Reason itself is self-correcting, a populace generally dedicated to peace and prosperity and Natural Law will ultimately correct those bad elements of society who prefer irrationality and the antithesis of Natural Law. And just what is this antithesis, this pursuit of one's own law in preference to the law that Reason would dictate? Anarchy. Even those politicians who pursue unjustifiable laws are, in essence, anarchists: they wish no law but that which their own whims dictate. The only real difference between a dictator and an anarchist is how many people he has duped into following his whims; the dictator has duped many, the anarchist, only himself. The dictator exerts his whims on others through the color of law; the true anarchist merely wishes he could do so. If slavery is the ownership part, then it is pretty easy to end it, just get people to stop saying they own them, but if slavery is the ability to force to obey, it would be funny to force people to stop enslaving others.

Slave-a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them (google). Does one need to be legal property of another to be forced to obey them? The concern then is people will see slavery as defeated once the "legal property of another" part is abolished, while the "forced to obey" is still in place. I guess it depends on how you see it.

The first hurdle then is not boundary equations, but a way to measure morality. Once we can measure morality, it would be possible to fine tune NAP to better produce moral results.

The obvious thing that jumps out at me from the comparison is that all those physics equations have a goal. "The Bernoulli Equation is an approximate relation between pressure, velocity, and elevation and is valid in steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible…" The problem is that you don't often get steady, incompressible flow where net frictional forces are negligible." So what does the Extended Bernoulli Equation do? It accounts for energy of pumps, frictional energy loss and energy removed by turbines, which is more compatible with the systems people use the equation for. Now with NAP, what is the intended goal? The goal has to be measurable.

No, i have no theory. I never claimed to have a theory. I do however, think it is important that we all (or at least as many as possible) agree to whatever theory we choose. This is why i asked these two questions 1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it? 2. How do you deal with those who disagree? You can have a theory or rule in mind and that may even be better than the current one (an-cap rules are arguably better than the current rules), but without answering those two questions collectively, it will just be one theory competing with another theory for dominance.

TO JSDev To the first question, what makes a distinction between shirts and lands, many things. A shirt is made of different materials, it has different qualities and can travel with a person wherever they go. If you are speaking in terms of property, then shirts are personal property which is the product of one transforming elements in nature which are naturally unused by planting cotton, harvesting it, then making it into threads to make a shirt. A land on the other hand is always there, we can transform the land (for example through planting), but we cannot make more landmass than already exists. For the second and third question, i will attempt to answer in one way, slavery. There was a time when some people were owned because the environment where they found themselves was populated with people who believes they were slaves and acted in such a way to enforce it. TO MMX2010 For your first comment, it is already the case that you accept certain rules that you disagree with if you live in the US. I would imagine it would be very difficult to live among people who believe a shirt is not mine and constantly try to take it from me. It would be even more difficult if they threatened to imprison me if i did not hand over he shirt. I have yet to hear someone make the case that property rights are naturalistic. The closes i have heard to it is the case that control=ownership, but that has a lot of problems. back to JSDev What do i expect to get out of this conversation? The same i got out of the conversation when i came into it, a different way of thinking. I think libertarian rights might produce the best results for society, but the arguments are not sufficient to make then a natural order. All rights are based on axioms that are not necessarily true. Property rights are based on the idea that one owns himself, but self ownership is not a fact of nature, self control is, otherwise slavery would be physically impossible. Those who have different ideas about what society should be use different axioms and produce different results. I do not have a theory of rights because i cannot produce an ought from an is. I am merely trying to get people to reevaluate their views.

As far as Devs post goes, i am not sure what his question or concern his. My shirt is my shirt because others accept that it is my shirt. My shirt has no special property that makes it mine, just like a land or house has no special property that makes it one persons. My property is only my property because others accept the concept of private property and accept that certain properties are mine. I stopped the discussion because with Dev because he seems to believe that property rights (An-Cap property rights) are a fact of nature which means there is no argument that will make him consider an alternative, including the fact that property rights are currently not An-Cap property rights. To say you have answered my question by claiming it is an invalid question because "I didn't say I want to live where the rule is the NAP, I said I already do, and so do all good and rational people." This means all those who disagree with you about NAP must be irrational. Then you go on to say "If you understand what the NAP is then you understand that you don't need to 'enforce' it, you only need to defend against people who violate it." This appears to be double speak as enforcing it is taking action against those who act against it (violate it). If others believe something else constitutes a just society and they are equally willing to act "to defend against people who violate it," would they also be justified in doing so?

I understand that you want to live in a society where the rule is the NAP, but that does not answer either of my questions. Even NAP alone is flexible to interpretation and who gets to set those boundaries?

The problem i have is primarily with that statement. I don't know if you mean using property that someone does not want you to use itself is force or forcefully taking the property from someone is force. If you mean the latter, then i agree with you, it is force, but the former is not force from the perspective of a non private property right individual. For example. you have a piece of land which you claim to own, If someone who does not believe in private property enters that land and decides to camp on it, you trying to forcefully remove them would be perceived as you initiating force against them which merits self defense. However, if you were doing something on the land when they came by, they could not use the land without forcing you off first, so they simply go to the next closest presently unused land.

If they [non-propertist] don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they [non-propertist] are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them [non-propertist] from using your own property. Problem with this statement is that they do not believe in private property. They cannot stop you from using a property that no one is currently using, but they expect you not to attack them for using property which you believe is yours (i.e land or house). They do not believe land or house can belong to any single person, but may be used by anyone as long as they do not forcefully prevent others from using it. Why should anyone be able to draw lines on the ground and use force on anyone that enters that land?

I do not understand what you mean by this. Can you please take time to express yourself more clearly? So you are equating private property systems with gravity? (i guess there is nothing i can say to persuade you if you believe private property is like gravity) It is not an island metaphor, i am simply stating the state is a system of governance. No matter what system you set up, some people will disagree, so how do you deal with that? Private property is just a specific case of that. Socialists, for example, believe in personal property (like clothes), but not private property (like land). Do you just force them to accept the rules you believe is just?

I like your response, but i think you made a mistake. Just because someone does not believe in private property does not mean they believe in forcefully taking stuff from you or preventing you from using things. It just means that when you are not currently using something, they do not see why they should be prevented from using it. The idea that they take your property does not exist for them, so you are the one initiating force.

Thanks for the responses. To Powder, it is fantastic that you have an idea of a society you would like to live in. I just have a few question for you. 1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it? 2. How do you deal with those who disagree? To JSDev, you say there is no we and there is no choice. That is not completely true. There is a we as long as we occupy the same environment. A man living on a small island could say there is no we because the actions of others have such little impact on him (this is just my assumption, they could dumb toxic waste ends up on his island which would not be little impact) that the only his decisions affect him. The moment we (meaning multiple individuals) share a common environment, then we have to deal with how others action affect us. Whether we use a gun or not, we have to put systems in place that constrain (incentive and disincentive) individuals actions. I am willing to consider (it is likely the case) that there is a better incentive system than just threatening people who do not agree with us. I will like to end with a question to you. How would you deal with someone who does not believe in private property in a voluntary society?

I believe you can find answers to your questions as it pertains to the American society and the rules that govern them by reading any book about the history of the American government. A government is the system by which a state or community is governed (Wikipedia).

What would you say to this statist? "A society is a group of individuals who have to come to some consensus about the way their society is run. Since actions of individuals in that society has a direct or indirect impact on the lives of other members, there has to exist some way to structure society so we can come to a consensus of the what the rules are. Rule making is unnecessary when we all agree. If everyone in our society were Christians, it would be unnecessary to make rules about religious freedom. If everyone in our society were Caucasian, it would be unnecessary to make rules about racial equality. Rules essentially govern two things, maintain order and set up a system of rule making. In USA, government is the resulting institution of those rules. In some societies, their solutions are priests, kings, council, elderly e.t.c. If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options; find a society more suitable to them or seek to change their current society by working within the confines of the current rules."

What would a society where people get to choose what rules they want applied to them and what rules they do not want applied to them look like.

Are you a citizen of the US? Does that mean something?