june Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Aggression is the initiation the of the use of force or fraud. and what is your definition of "force"?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 and what is your definition of "force"? It's violence to compel or restrain.
square4 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Aggression is the initiation the of the use of force or fraud. It seems that the OP wanted to give a definition of everything that is a property violation, not just of what is aggression. And property right violations do not necessarily involve aggression, violence, or fraud. Previously, we had a similar discussion about indirect effects of actions, in which you said that making loud noise for too long would be a property violation. So the larger question is, what constitutes a property right violation? - Forbidding any meddling, even moving eardrums, forbids too much. - Forbidding only violence forbids too little. So it must be somewhere in between. Can we determine objectively where to draw the line, if so based on which objective criteria?
june Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 It seems that the OP wanted to give a definition of everything that is a property violation, not just of what is aggression. And property right violations do not necessarily involve aggression, violence, or fraud. Previously, we had a similar discussion about indirect effects of actions, in which you said that making loud noise for too long would be a property violation. So the larger question is, what constitutes a property right violation? - Forbidding any meddling, even moving eardrums, forbids too much. - Forbidding only violence forbids too little. So it must be somewhere in between. Can we determine objectively where to draw the line, if so based on which objective criteria? great points. what you mentioned is the heart of confusion in this topic: where/how do you draw the line on what constitutes a violation of a property rights?in the link you posted ProfessionalTeabagger claimed that someone making noise outside your home is not a breach of your property rights, but then went on to claim that someone making a loud noise outside your house 24/7 is breaching your property rights -- but no proper argument was put forward as to why this distinction is made, which highlights the confusion around the point you bring up.the OP's question really cannot be answered without a clarification on what constitutes a violation property rights.
alex_florida Posted May 13, 2014 Author Posted May 13, 2014 square4 -- thank you for the reference to the previous thread with your OP - great questions - I am interested in answers too as well as the precise definition of damage or harm. I also think that being a proponent of NAP does not mean that you agree to never violate the NAP or private property, directly or indirectly. It means that you agree to the consequences of violating it. There may be situation when you choose (or even have no other choice) to violate it but you will have to compensate the person harmed for the losses you caused them. Therefore, for the practical matter it is important to evaluate in each particular situation if anybody is really harmed...
Devon Gibbons Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 One statist disputing NAP with me and trying to show its logical inconsistency used an example the air we all breathe. I exhaled carbon dioxide, he said, and he was forced to inhale it. Doesn't it intervention into his body? If I followed NAP, why I would "touch" his lungs when I breathed with no his and the other people consent? Isn't it abuse of his lungs, his body?H If I followed NAP, I would have to stop breathing immediately! How could I counter this (and similar) arguments against universal application of NAP? CO2 is transformed into sugar and oxygen by plants during the day at ~100x the efficiency we convert that same material back into CO2 and other compounds. Ironically, the more you exhale the more he can eat. He just wants to tax you for breathing, while he himself breathes. It is a hypocrisy blind to most people who swim in a pool polluted by false climate science funders.
dsayers Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 CO2 is transformed into sugar and oxygen by plants during the day at ~100x the efficiency we convert that same material back into CO2 and other compounds. Ironically, the more you exhale the more he can eat. Brilliant!
june Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 square4 -- thank you for the reference to the previous thread with your OP - great questions - I am interested in answers too as well as the precise definition of damage or harm. knowing what constitutes a violation is a quite essential aspect of property rights and the nap, so hopefully someone will/can clear up this definition.
alex_florida Posted May 14, 2014 Author Posted May 14, 2014 marginalist -- Thank you all for great comments! I am glad that joined this Forum - much to learn...
june Posted May 15, 2014 Posted May 15, 2014 marginalist -- Thank you all for great comments! I am glad that joined this Forum - much to learn... do you feel you now have the arguments to counter this persons points (from the OP)?
Recommended Posts