Voluntaryism: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)

[NoStateofMind]

Uhmmm, it is exceedingly clear that no society has ever survived the non aggression principle. Unless you're going to point us to one, that is.

It is a naive fantasy clung to by fools who never have to face the consequences of their ideology.

Juror pointed it out the fallacy in your argument above. Not surprised that you went a different direction in your response. You do that all the time.

 

[Gunslinger08]

As with all pie-in-the-sky notions of a Utopian state where everyone lives in harmony, this will never happen. People are ultimately selfish, greedy, and power hungry. Eventually, the man with more will be challenged by the man with less. The only way to enforce a Utopian state is to create a dystopia where personal choice is disallowed. You will never change the attitudes of every living person.

 

[Screech]

Uhmmm, it is exceedingly clear that no society has ever survived the non aggression principle. Unless you're going to point us to one, that is.

It is a naive fantasy clung to by fools who never have to face the consequences of their ideology.

Quit being so pessimistic. It's obvious that we don't need a government. Instead, we can all follow our own rules, and when someone tries to hurt us, we can band together for each other's support. In fact, we might even periodically come together to choose a person who would be responsible for such actions, perhaps by selecting them through some process. Of course, they would only need to have certain laws that they might,.....


oh. Oh my.

 

[fskimospy]

Juror pointed it out the fallacy in your argument above. Not surprised that you went a different direction in your response. You do that all the time.

Small groups try no authority without consent all the time, they just move away from it as they grow or collapse due to paralysis of action.

See occupy wall st.

As I said before, this theory is attractive in many of the same ways that communism is attractive. It takes an unrealistic expectation of human behavior and then says basically "wouldn't the world be nice if people didn't act like people?"

All of this relies on magical thinking.

 

[Jaskalas]

Small groups try no authority without consent all the time, they just move away from it as they grow or collapse due to paralysis of action.

See occupy wall st.

As I said before, this theory is attractive in many of the same ways that communism is attractive. It takes an unrealistic expectation of human behavior and then says basically "wouldn't the world be nice if people didn't act like people?"

All of this relies on magical thinking.

This argument is strong. One does not overcome human nature by wishful thinking. There needs to be a plan for implementation, something realistic to approach the issue with.

You don't just flat out have NAP become the guiding principle of the land suddenly, you take small steps towards it. You figure out how to strike a natural balance between freedom and authority. Fighting for State's rights over the Union is a practical, tangible place to start.

Big problems are easier to tackle once you break them down into smaller problems. All you guys are doing is wasting everyone's time if you avoid standing for and supporting real steps to honor and promote NAP. You need to know what you're doing, and what you would ask us to do.

 

[NoStateofMind]

This argument is strong.

No it isn't. A small group a society does not make.

One does not overcome human nature by wishful thinking. There needs to be a plan for implementation, something realistic to approach the issue with.

Its not wishful thinking to change ones mind. It just is. You either change your mind or you don't. You go through your daily life without intentionally harming others yet don't understand how that could happen without the mythical "government authority"?

You don't just flat out have NAP become the guiding principle of the land suddenly, you take small steps towards it.

Who said it would be? Certainly there is a process, or deprogramming if you will, to get to the point of where you recognize that you don't need "authority" of any kind to tell you right from wrong. You know this inherently.

You figure out how to strike a natural balance between freedom and authority. Fighting for State's rights over the Union is a practical, tangible place to start.

There is no balance and shows where your mind is at. You aren't willing to give up the authoritarian principle just yet, unless there is some "safeguards" (read that as authority) in place. Yet you can't explain how thats possible. In every situation where "limited" power has been given to whatever "government" they always end up overbearing on the people. Why? As I explained above you cannot get peaches from tomatoes.

Big problems are easier to tackle once you break them down into smaller problems. All you guys are doing is wasting everyone's time if you avoid standing for and supporting real steps to honor and promote NAP. You need to know what you're doing, and what you would ask us to do.

The wasting time is on those who think they can fix "authority" by demanding those in power use less of it. We always end up right back here.

 

[nextJin]

I personally think that there will always be at least a few nation-States in the world, but sometime in the future more and more centralization of power will be dismantled.

Basically, some of the world will be Stateless other parts will always have a State.

There are some places I don't understand why they have a State, for example it only put Ireland into more debt (the Irish are a pretty homogenous population). Israel would probably be better off without a State.

The Japanese are also very homogenous and they would be better off without a State. There the State is an illusion like the gun control there is.

Hell, I don't understand why anyone sees the need for a State here. The State isn't needed because people are going to kill people anyway... think about Gun control in NJ. That said, the State can't save enough lives to justify.

Eventually humanity will be under one state of governship, it will be centuries into the future but it will get there eventually. Star Trek did a fairly good job of what I think it will get too. There might be outliers but the end result will be a unified planet.

Off topic a bit but the nation that successfully starts planetary travel and settlements is the nation that will take the lead in that eventual unified government.