Chaoticoli Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 http://i.imgur.com/gQspL.jpgIt's trying to debunk the validity of the NAP.
Rob_Ilir Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Nap is not about "others should not be agressive", you can be agressive as in boxing ring fight after you sign a deal. If you did it before the deal the first punch is the breaking of nap, and the counter punch is self defence.And what is "accaptable" and "this is not accaptable" at the bottom? Other than a reservation for weirdos to practice their agression freely?
Mcattack Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 It's a strawman from the get-go. The Nap is the principle that others should not initiate violence against me without consent ( I like when my girlfriend spanks me) []. Not a personal belief that others sould not be agressive(spank each other).
Rick Horton Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 It's a strawman from the get-go. The Nap is the principle that others should not initiate violence against me without consent ( I like when my girlfriend spanks me) /emoticons/emotion-4.gif. Not a personal belief that others sould not be agressive(spank each other). This board here is assembled of people who are very logical and nice. Sometimes almost so gentle that we forget that a little bit of spunk is necessary to motivate. Not just knowledge. People need to be inspired, and sometimes not forced, but provoked to see things differently. The NAP. What it really is to me: You have no right to force me to do anything. I have every right to defend myself if you do. I will not force you to do anything. If you force me to do something I will beat your ass... EVERYBODY knows that there is never a justifiable moment where they themselves can be forced to do something against their will. Considering that NOBODY knows, and I suspect nobody ever passes on their sum of their personal, and only provable reality, it becomes intoloerable that somebody ever think they have the right to invade your experience (your only shot at experience, and your experience is the only provable one, and when you die for all intents and purposes so DOES all of reality since you only will ever know yours) You see, you will NEVER be anything more than an aspect of MY experience of reality, and since only I experience my reality and will never experience any OTHER reality, or subjective reality, your force on my experience is NOT SOMETHING I ACCEPT. As far as I'm concerned you may exist, BUT surely are merely a subject/aspect of MY reality.
Rick Horton Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 And that much I KNOW. No proof trumps the reality that binds me to my experience, and no subject within my reality trumps me, because I am the Chief Observer of the sum experience within MY reality. The only proof available to me that anything exists at all. All components of my reality are merely aspects. I carry the sum. The sum is the supreme authority of the experience, not the components because the subjects/components don't experience the fullness of the sum, but the sum is the fullness and totality of the subjects OF the experienced reality. That much is provable because " You don't know me"....
Brandon Buck _BB_ Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 His foundational error is in the assumption that voluntarists would force people to abide by the NAP. If I can convince others to honor the NAP through my honoring of the NAP, then I haven't violated anything and I haven't coerced anyone. Principles are not laws.
Chaoticoli Posted February 15, 2013 Author Posted February 15, 2013 Then the anti-NAP guy says:"Then it's nothing more than a personal preference for you. Not really a principle to project upon others."[/font]Afterward, he keeps referring me to this link:http://mises.org/daily/6101/The-Molyneux-Problem
Chaoticoli Posted February 15, 2013 Author Posted February 15, 2013 Is there anywhere on this forum where this article was already brought up? I couldn't find it, but I know some of you more avid FDR people would know if that's the case.
Rick Horton Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 A lot of the article seemed to have some points, actually. I'd like to see them debate and hash this out.
Andrew79 Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 Is there anywhere on this forum where this article was already brought up? I couldn't find it, but I know some of you more avid FDR people would know if that's the case. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35935.aspx?PageIndex=1 - Stefan's response. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/35967/278341.aspx - David's reply to Stefan. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/36084/279919.aspx - A more general Mises.org thread
Alan C. Posted February 15, 2013 Posted February 15, 2013 He's right; the NAP is a preference, but it's also a principle; they're not mutually exclusive. I prefer to abstain from aggressing against others. I live according to this principle through demonstrated preference.
Recommended Posts