Are the NAP and Property Rights a social contract?

[dsayers]

intrinsic value

I've explained to you before: That which is intrinsic is objective while value is subjective. Therefore "intrinsic value" is impossible.

 

@topic: Obviously social contract is an invalid concept and a deceptive one to boot. When a person initiates the use of force, they are asserting that property rights are invalid. They are voluntarily creating a debt (contract).

[bugzysegal]

how what?  how do I call it wrong?

Yeah. If it is a permissible response under NAP and property rights...why would you call such actions wrong? Like I said, I might be missing something big here as I'm a bit new to this

[bugzysegal]

I've explained to you before: That which is intrinsic is objective while value is subjective. Therefore "intrinsic value" is impossible.

 

You can straightforwardly reject my definition of value. That doesn't make your assessment accurate right? While value is the extent an individual assesses usefulness or desirability, where there is no room for assessment, value is objective. Again we are left at an argument from definition.

[dsayers]

You can straightforwardly reject my definition of value. That doesn't make your assessment accurate right?

The question doesn't address the fact that I've challenged your use of "intrinsic value" before. You put it forth as if no challenge was made, as is your custom, which is a confession that it is not the truth that you seek.

 

What makes the claim I put forth accurate is that value does not exist outside of individual consciousness, the definition of subjective. What is a Corvette worth? Ask 100 people, get 100 answers. Nothing intrinsic here.

[bugzysegal]

The question doesn't address the fact that I've challenged your use of "intrinsic value" before. You put it forth as if no challenge was made, as is your custom, which is a confession that it is not the truth that you seek.

.

I'd ask that you not put words in my mouth. I didn't address it in the private message, because you had just got done telling me how my post wasn't worth your time because of our rapport. That left me a bit miffed. 

 

What makes the claim I put forth accurate is that value does not exist outside of individual consciousness, the definition of subjective. What is a Corvette worth? Ask 100 people, get 100 answers. Nothing intrinsic here.

Math is only in the conscious mind. Unless you are a mathematical realist(platonist), which is absurd. 

[dsayers]

Math is only in the conscious mind. Unless you are a mathematical realist(platonist), which is absurd. 

See how I don't have to put words in your mouth? Point of contention was that value is subjective. Talking about math avoids the point altogether.

[bugzysegal]

See how I don't have to put words in your mouth? Point of contention was that value is subjective. Talking about math avoids the point altogether.

"value does not exist outside of individual consciousness, the definition of subjective" My point was math is objective and doesn't exist outside the minds of conscious entities. It was drawing on analogy,I thought it was obvious. 

[dsayers]

Trying to categorize something that isn't "intrinsic" nor "value" is a way of deflecting from the fact that you put forth "intrinsic value" as if it's a valid assertion when in fact is it internally inconsistent. That IS obvious to me and that is why I'm letting you know that you're not going to get away with it.

[Torero]

Intrinsic value is not a contradiction, it's the essence of our lives; energy and thus resources and unprocessed foods. But not if you define "value" purely as an economic thing. Value is much broader than that.

 

To use the Corvette example; the materials, time, energy and labour to get that Corvette represent the intrinsic value I would say. That one could buy that Corvette for just 1 dollar doesn't mean the (intrinsic) value is just 1 dollar. It is the established price.

 

But if there's anything wrong with the fake crony-crook-"capitalist" world we live in, it's that economic value and intrinsic value do not align. Logical; money isn't worth anything, so the way to represent value is rigged.

 

It's very easy to observe in the oil price. 159 liters/some 35 gallons? of the most valuable product in the world (literally the whole world turns around and on it) costs 1/7 the price of beer. Ridiculous.

 

Yet it costs millions of years to form this irreplaceble substance of great intrinsic (= caloric) value.

 

@TT: the social "contract" is a flawed concept as it would mean that simply being born somewherr means signing a contract.

 

NAP and Property Rights are not concepts but stem from ethics. They cannot be equated to a concept that is flawed in the first place.

 

NAP and Property Rights are not rigged; they are valid for all situations. Except for 1 party at the moment. That party is again a concept; the state.

[dsayers]

Intrinsic - adjective, 1. belonging to a thing by its very nature source

 

That which is intrinsic is objective as it exists independent of individual consciousness. In order for "intrinsic value" to be plausible, you'd have to make the case that value is objective. If value is objective, then what is its scientific unit of measurement? What instrument do we use to measure it with? In what way would we observe it?

 

You mentioned oil. Oil used to be viewed as a blight upon the land on which it was found. Present day, people are willing to kill millions of human beings in the name of the State to have more oil. Its value doesn't sound objective or constant to me.

[David Ottinger]

Hi, this came up in a discussion with a statist. He said that there is an implicit contract between me and the state, and therefore they are right to tax me. I answered, that the contract is not valid because it is forced on me and there is no voluntary agreement between me and the state. He then said, that the NAP and Property Rights are also an implicit social contract that an anarcho capitalistic society would force on him. It left me speechless, any thoughts?

 

In order to explain why the NAP is not a social contract, I first need to explain natural law and then distinguish it from edicts.   Natural law is built on the observation that there is a natural order to things -- which is to say that nothing is random.

 

If you accept this, then it's safe to assume that there is a natural order to human behavior, i.e. it's not random.

 

 

Thus, if that is accepted, then it is safe to assume that there are particular actions that lead to particular outcomes. Meaning: The human experience is not random.

 

 

So, that said, if it is sound to hold that no outcome is random*, then there must be a natural law governing our experiences regardless of how ignorant we are of its influence on events as well as to what degree.

 

 

Further more, if there is a goal like justice (a description of a particular experience), then there must be *laws* (i.e. principles) affecting events that lead to such outcomes. And, so, the discovery of such principles is the pursuit of the rule of law. Or, better said, the pursuit of justice.  Otherwise, you're left with rule by might, i.e. tyranny.

 

Anyone that demands justice is by default acknowledging there are natural laws, otherwise 'justice' is a meaningless word, i.e. it's not objective.  In short, valid moral theories like the NAP are natural law rather than contractual in nature.  Law is not to be confused with edicts.  What contracts allow is for people to make binding agreements that have the force of law, but they are not law.     And, edicts are contractual in nature rather than a principle.  Although, identifying edicts as duties created by a contract is misleading because between the state and the individual there is no offer; consideration; acceptance.  The so called contract is just imposed and consent is then assumed, hence the idea that the consent is implicit.  It's a trick. 

 

 

I'm being brief, so I hope that explains it enough to get the idea. 

 

 

 

*Not to imply that every event has purpose.

[Mister Mister]

I think it's an interesting idea, that by being born and being protected by societies laws (if they are rational and consistent and universal), you ought to adhere to them when you grow up.  But it could only be taken seriously once people en masse adhere to the NAP with children.

[dsayers]

I think it's an interesting idea, that by being born and being protected by societies laws (if they are rational and consistent and universal), you ought to adhere to them when you grow up.  But it could only be taken seriously once people en masse adhere to the NAP with children.

This is an unprincipled conclusion. To see it, just replace society's laws with society's bars. As in literally a cage. If society protects you with a cage, you should conform to that cage. Regardless of consent. Meaning we're talking about an unchosen positive obligation, which is unethical. If I give you a sandwich, I don't get to say you owe me anything.

 

That's the bizarre part to me: If society truly cared for and protected children, they wouldn't grow up wanting to manipulate people. So there'd be no expectation that young adults owed society anything. Similarly, those same young adults would probably contribute voluntarily. Even if it's just to the extent of division of labor for their own survival, as long as they weren't initiating the use of force, you couldn't fault them.

 

Anybody interested in more on this should check out Stef's recent video

[Mister Mister]

That's the bizarre part to me: If society truly cared for and protected children, they wouldn't grow up wanting to manipulate people. So there'd be no expectation that young adults owed society anything. Similarly, those same young adults would probably contribute voluntarily. Even if it's just to the extent of division of labor for their own survival, as long as they weren't initiating the use of force, you couldn't fault them.

 

I agree and think that's the point I was trying to make.  Many people will disagree because they believe human beings are inherently bad and "selfish".

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, I don't know were you got that idea. I don't know how it follows necessarily from what you were talking about. Defense has to be proportionate, otherwise it's just aggression. 

Punish the Criminal Nature, Not Just the Specific Crime

 

Whoever attacks first loses equal rights and should be punished more than the damage he did.  Many of our accepted but self-destructive received ideas come from the original theism.  An eye for a tooth should be the correct attitude.  Anyone who knocks your tooth out is a perpetual threat and deserves disproportionate punitive damages.  Otherwise, a bank robber should only have to pay back the money he stole and then be released.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Punish the Criminal Nature, Not Just the Specific Crime

 

Whoever attacks first loses equal rights and should be punished more than the damage he did.  Many of our accepted but self-destructive received ideas come from the original theism.  An eye for a tooth should be the correct attitude.  Anyone who knocks your tooth out is a perpetual threat and deserves disproportionate punitive damages.  Otherwise, a bank robber should only have to pay back the money he stole and then be released.

Punishment is a form of restitution and correction. I'm only talking about the amount of force needed to defend oneself. If a woman is dangerous and has, say, dragged you to the ground you might throw a few punches. But if after you have used enough force to ensure your safety but then proceed to punch, you've moved from defensive force into aggressive. What punishment the woman faces can come later. 

[Des]

I know that there is no contract in a statist society. However, a social contract is defined as a implicit contract to legitimize the authority of the state. Therefore a statist can only talk about social contracts in a society organized by a state. 

 

Yeah, I think it's okay to shoot someone that slaps me in the face. That's because I don't know if the attacker does something that may result in my death. 

Firstly, are you still on the forum and interested in discussing this?

Secondly, where I am with you on this issue, is that I want a contract with people, a contract that says they agree to leave the neighbourhood where I stay, and allow me to spy on them, if they show by word or actions that they won't stick to non-aggressive behaviour. My practical need for survival requires that I get dangerous people away from me and have them spied on (This applies even if they are honest enough to admit they may harm me, and too honest to sign the contract). That is why I want to be harmless, so that other harmless people don't need me to be far away and under surveillance.

Punish the Criminal Nature, Not Just the Specific Crime

 

Whoever attacks first loses equal rights and should be punished more than the damage he did.  Many of our accepted but self-destructive received ideas come from the original theism.  An eye for a tooth should be the correct attitude.  Anyone who knocks your tooth out is a perpetual threat and deserves disproportionate punitive damages.  Otherwise, a bank robber should only have to pay back the money he stole and then be released.

I am with you on the threat posed by dangerous people. I estimate that the best way to deal with dangerous people is to exile them and spy on them and post guards to prevent them attacking anyone, even prevent them attacking other exiles.

[Des]

Importantly, if someone asserts that he need not follow the NAP iro me and my property, because he did not agree to do so [no contract], I can equally assert that on the same basis, I need not follow the NAP iro him and his, so, off I send him to exile-land, using aggressive force.

[Archimedes]

Hello Des, what exactly do you want to talk about? The fact that I think it's okay to shoot somebody who slaps me in the face?

I think I have to explain the context for that. I probably wouldn't shoot somebody over a slap in the face, if I know that person. I would get rid of that person, but the past relationship with that person is resonable evidence, that the person will probably don't harm me further. However, if I walk down the street and a random person slaps me in the face, then I think it's reasonable to shoot that person in self defense, since you don't know what else that person might do.

 

I think such a contract is a good idea. I'm still thinking about how you get other people to sign this. Is this something people have to sign when they move into your neighborhood? I'm assuming you are thinking about a gated community. Otherwise, I don't see how you would have the right to demand others to sign this contract.

[Des]

Hello Des, what exactly do you want to talk about? The fact that I think it's okay to shoot somebody who slaps me in the face?

I think I have to explain the context for that. I probably wouldn't shoot somebody over a slap in the face, if I know that person. I would get rid of that person, but the past relationship with that person is resonable evidence, that the person will probably don't harm me further. However, if I walk down the street and a random person slaps me in the face, then I think it's reasonable to shoot that person in self defense, since you don't know what else that person might do.

 

I think such a contract is a good idea. I'm still thinking about how you get other people to sign this. Is this something people have to sign when they move into your neighborhood? I'm assuming you are thinking about a gated community. Otherwise, I don't see how you would have the right to demand others to sign this contract.

I am looking into the future to predict how people will resolve the issues around aggression (I predict that the NAP will be used and am detailing how it will be done). I get your point about an unexpected attack being dangerous, and I expect people will, after discarding statism, grasp that some people do not consent to adhere to the NAP, and can't be treated in the same way as those who commit to adhere to the NAP.  I don't want to immediately kill whoever refuses to make a non-aggression pact with me - however - there are consequences from not killing them - chiefly that they remain a threat to me (even if far away, could do missile attack from other side of world).

 

So, allowing them as much freedom as I prefer to, my approach is: I, and those in a pact with me, we live inside our border, and we let in harmless people (as assessed by the professionals appointed as per the pact). We evict by force (as agreed in the pact) whoever becomes dangerous. We have spy cameras spying on evictees (cos missiles), and we intervene with force, to stop evictees attacking anyone, even other evictees. This means we hire guards to work in evictee-land. No prisons. There are pact territories, each with their own internal pact, and whatever shared agreements they prefer (to permit travel among NAP territories), and the rest of everywhere is evictee-land, in which the guards we hire, go break the weapons made by evictees, and chase them away from the borders of the safer territories.

 

I see this having gradations, with some areas being areas where good people try to rehabilitate dangerous people on the basis of voluntary participation from each party. Different areas, different grades of personal security. Not like gated communities, cos here in South Africa, some of the rogues are inside those gates. Not like gated communities here, cos here, people drive out to go to work, and I want to only leave safe territory when I decide to take the risk of being a tourist (not daily to go to work).

 

I am estimating that my design is the safest for people who prefer being safe, that many people, when there is a panacea for illness, will care more about being much more safe from lethal attack, and therefore, what those people of the future will do, will resemble what I describe.

[dsayers]

Des, I caution against using "NAP." NAP is just shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." Stated as NAP, I've seen a LOT of people (including you here) refer to this as if it's some contract that needs to be signed, or other intangible force. We all "agree with the NAP" by simply making use of our own bodies. People who engage in theft, assault, rape, and murder are telling you with their very behavior that property rights are invalid, therefore force is justifiable in obstructing their aggression. I think you're taking something that is quite simple and obfuscating it.

[Des]

Des, I caution against using "NAP." NAP is just shorthand for "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." Stated as NAP, I've seen a LOT of people (including you here) refer to this as if it's some contract that needs to be signed, or other intangible force. We all "agree with the NAP" by simply making use of our own bodies. People who engage in theft, assault, rape, and murder are telling you with their very behavior that property rights are invalid, therefore force is justifiable in obstructing their aggression. I think you're taking something that is quite simple and obfuscating it.

Okay, yes, I can conclude from the behaviour of the thief that he either thinks he is special (which thought I am free to deny or apply in reverse as my own special permission to take from him), or I'm left with the alternate conclusion that his morality allows both his theft from me and mine (from him).

 

My interest firstly comes from my hope that I personally might get nanomeds and survive into a future very different (in social order) from the present. This leaves me interested in knowing the most safe social order I could live in, so I would have the option of really minimising my odds of death (from accident, and from unethical actions not limited to murder).

 

I did not intend to imply that anyone needs to sign the NAP, I see it as a practicality that I need dangerous people to be away from me, and spied on by people I can trust. I expect other people will come around to this perspective, eventually, and that will be the shape of the future (just that I may suffer if it takes too long for others to come around to the best prediction of choice and consequence, that is why I push for early adoption).

 

I see it as a key part of the process of assessment of a person's level of threat to me, that I offer him a pact which holds us each to standards to which I am willing to commit, and am willing to follow-through on my commitment. If he refuses to sign, then I know to take 2 armed bodyguards with me when I walk past him. If he signs up, I need a background check on him, to decide if I can do the trade of my ethical behaviour for his (alternately choose mutual distrust and spying as the better option for me).  If we aren't signed up with each other, I don't want him within his best missile shot of my suburb, and I want to subscribe to armed forces who will keep him away, spy on him, and destroy his missiles.

 

I would value your comment, because I am planning my future (even though I may die of old age and not see what I have planned).

Better suggestions (for keeping me safe), I would welcome.

[dsayers]

Pact, spy, missile... I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a private investigator. Last night, I drove around, making some patrols, stopped in a shop to pick up a pizza. Night before that, I had stopped in a gas station to get gas. I passed by/interacted with a lot of people. Maybe it was the gun on my hip (I honestly don't know; been a feature of my life for a decade now), but I experienced no thoughts of pacts, spying, or missiles because nobody I came across behaved in an aggressive fashion. Given my line of work, I think I would be exposed to it more than most.

 

So perhaps I am ignorant in this conversation. If I'm not, then I think either there's a breakdown in communication or you're hanging out in some seriously bad places. Could you elaborate on where these ideas are coming from?

[Des]

Pact, spy, missile... I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a private investigator. Last night, I drove around, making some patrols, stopped in a shop to pick up a pizza. Night before that, I had stopped in a gas station to get gas. I passed by/interacted with a lot of people. Maybe it was the gun on my hip (I honestly don't know; been a feature of my life for a decade now), but I experienced no thoughts of pacts, spying, or missiles because nobody I came across behaved in an aggressive fashion. Given my line of work, I think I would be exposed to it more than most.

 

So perhaps I am ignorant in this conversation. If I'm not, then I think either there's a breakdown in communication or you're hanging out in some seriously bad places. Could you elaborate on where these ideas are coming from?

Will happily elaborate. I am fine for now. That is to say, that as things stand, I am unlikely to be murdered, and likely to die in about 2063 at age of 100, of pneumonia which my (by then) degenerated body cannot fight off.

 

I cycle the streets of Johannesburg, South Africa, every morning and evening between work and home. In my years so far, I have only fought off about 5 muggings, all far off from my current route which is short and relatively safe. The walls around each home in the suburbs I cycle through, and the heavy bars over each window of each house, remind me what I know: without that, the stuff inside the house has an over 50% chance of being burgled sometime in the next 5 years. Here, there are significant odds of being murdered during a housebreaking.

 

Statist police, plus private armed patrols through the neighbourhood, plus all that physical security barrier, is inefficient compared to just keeping dangerous people out of the small territory I commute in daily. It is also ineffective, being reactive more than protective.

 

This won't be really important (to me), if I can't extend my life. If I can, though, with each decade of extra life expectancy, I add some chance of my life ending in murder. Eventually the odds of being murdered get close to 1:1.

[dsayers]

Thanks for elaborating. I understand better now. However, I now have another question: If this is your experience and the concerns you have as a result, have you considered moving? Sorry if it seems I'm straying from what you were originally talking about. However, with the talk about spying and missiles, it occurs to me that trying to manage other people can be exhausting. I wonder if there might be options that are easier for you.

[Des]

Thanks for elaborating. I understand better now. However, I now have another question: If this is your experience and the concerns you have as a result, have you considered moving? Sorry if it seems I'm straying from what you were originally talking about. However, with the talk about spying and missiles, it occurs to me that trying to manage other people can be exhausting. I wonder if there might be options that are easier for you.

Managing other people is what governments do.

When there are no governments, I want dangerous people managed (not killed outright, for various reasons). I estimate that locking dangerous people up is problematic in many ways, including efficiency (on which point I may have a wrong estimate). If dangerous people are caught and then released (either because we just can't get enough evidence to prove wrongdoing to an excessively high standard), or because they did their time without becoming any less dangerous, then my odds of dying due to physical aggression, are higher.

 

No, I estimate that the feeble measures of the local police, plus my own measures to avoid being murdered, will allow me to make it to 2063 if my body does not give in earlier. It is only if I get nanomeds to extend my personal healthy life beyond that, that I will be around to care. It is, though, an interesting exercise to estimate what method is the most effective for dealing with whoever is still dangerous (when parenting is better and that proportion of dangerous people is smaller).