Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Evolution / Re: Zero Aggression Principle in Zero-Sum circumstances?
« Last post by AZRedhawk44 on June 30, 2015, 02:36:14 pm »
Quote
Most people can't even get the reason for the NAP down right.  It's not a simple matter, especially when everyone is so focused on a particular act's effect on the other person, rather than the actor himself.  This is particularly tough with the NAP since it involves how we interact with others, duh.  It's why I don't think anything will ever change unless and until people understand that it's in their own self-interest not to be a looter, moocher or especially thug.  All the other reasons eventually get trumped by some situation or rationalization, and thus the commitment to the NAP gets laid by the wayside.  This is inevitable IMO because as long as people look outward for their understanding of the good, they'll never be fully consistent with reality and whatever inconsistency there is, will eventually knock out the decency of the "promise" of the NAP.

I love this.

Breaking into that cabin to get food when starving... it doesn't matter if you can make restitution to the owner.  You've violated yourself.  You've just lost your own potential to care for yourself, and to care for the ethical boundaries of others.

What good is eating, if you do no good with the act of eating?  You've reverted to an animal, not a thinking human being.
22
Evolution / Re: Zero Aggression Principle in Zero-Sum circumstances?
« Last post by AZRedhawk44 on June 30, 2015, 02:25:01 pm »
It it was me in that situation I'd take the food and then own up to wronging the cabin owner, and try to make what restitution I could. I suppose he'd be within his rights to shoot me and I couldn't cry if he did. Hopefully he'd be willing to voluntarily give me mercy.

I was thinking of this topic recently when reading about the droughts out west. Water rights are a bitter source of contention, and would strain even the most principled ZAP adherents.

And this is how I would respond, as either the violator or violated.  Either way the taker is a criminal.  Restitution is possible, but judgement of that restitution resides solely in the hands of the violated.  Contrition on the part of the violator tends to make violence unlikely, and a willingness and CAPABILITY to make restitution as desired by the violated will usually resolve the conflict.

Ate my food?  You're going to the store and buying me new food. 

Food isn't available?  You're fishing and hunting and planting my garden and salting/smoking/etc to give me the same longevity as that can could.  While you may think that can was only worth $1 FRN, it's actual worth is its ability to sit unused for as much as a decade and protect my food from spoiling, and provide a meal long into the future.  You stole THAT from me, not $1 FRN.  That's what you owe me.

If you can't do those things, then I have to decide if you're a threat worth a bullet (you just stole a valuable piece of property from me on which my life depends), or if a kick in your ass will send you on your way to get out of my life forever, or if you're useful in other ways, or if I'm feeling charitable.  But those are then my decisions to make, and not yours to waive off by leaving a worthless $20 FRN on the counter of my hunting lodge 200 miles away from the nearest grocery store.
23
Evolution / Re: Zero Aggression Principle in Zero-Sum circumstances?
« Last post by pelletfarmer on June 30, 2015, 01:52:17 pm »
I try to be a "top-down" or hierarchical thinker, so I believe it pays to first identify the basic nature (or classification) of an object/referent--here the NAP--prior to figuring out its detailed attributes.  That way you don't spin wheels looking for the length of electricity or the color of gravity.

AZR gave a good analysis in his "line of thinking," and I guess Rand pretty much agreed---two rational sources there.  Of course someone else would no doubt have a different analysis---there's no limit to convoluted rationalizations all over the map, coming to all sorts of different conclusions.

Yes...we could judge the respective analyses as to their rationality--truth, correspondence--when set against reality.  With enough analysis, one would no doubt come "closer to what reality is," and hence "closer to what should be" than the others.

I'd offer that none of that matters, owing to the nature of the NAP itself.  In a nutshell, it's a cognitive existent.  It's a judgment.  It's a choice.  Kent McManigal calls it a "promise" and I think that's very close.  In any event, it's a decision of one sort or another and as such, it's going to be whatever the chooser makes of it.  This is absolutely true, completely irrespective of what ought to be, and even what is.

It's important for each of us individually to conclude "what's closer to the truth" and so "what should be," but in a social context--which is all any of this is about--it is whatever the chooser decides it to be.  That's why IMO it's so critical to get the foundation correct...that ultimately all choices are and should be based on the self-interest of the actor and that it's the actor alone who decides that, for good or for bad.

Most people can't even get the reason for the NAP down right.  It's not a simple matter, especially when everyone is so focused on a particular act's effect on the other person, rather than the actor himself.  This is particularly tough with the NAP since it involves how we interact with others, duh.  It's why I don't think anything will ever change unless and until people understand that it's in their own self-interest not to be a looter, moocher or especially thug.  All the other reasons eventually get trumped by some situation or rationalization, and thus the commitment to the NAP gets laid by the wayside.  This is inevitable IMO because as long as people look outward for their understanding of the good, they'll never be fully consistent with reality and whatever inconsistency there is, will eventually knock out the decency of the "promise" of the NAP.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.  It's also why trying to have some "system" in place before folk make a commitment to the NAP, is a total waste of time IMO.  Either they choose that they don't wish to live as thugs, thieves and liars...or thugs, thieves and liars are going to be around until they're eradicated.  There's simply no other way to get there, and that's a fact.
24
Evolution / Re: Zero Aggression Principle in Zero-Sum circumstances?
« Last post by Lumpy on June 30, 2015, 01:45:15 pm »
It it was me in that situation I'd take the food and then own up to wronging the cabin owner, and try to make what restitution I could. I suppose he'd be within his rights to shoot me and I couldn't cry if he did. Hopefully he'd be willing to voluntarily give me mercy.

I was thinking of this topic recently when reading about the droughts out west. Water rights are a bitter source of contention, and would strain even the most principled ZAP adherents.
25
Evolution / Re: Zero Aggression Principle in Zero-Sum circumstances?
« Last post by AZRedhawk44 on June 30, 2015, 12:52:00 pm »
I know this is an old topic, but hey, I just got here so cut me a little slack ;D

I just learned about the NAP about a week or two ago from this forum. I think I understand this concept and it seems simple and straightforward to me: Don't initiate violence and don't steal people's stuff. I read the analogy about the man breaking into a cabin in Alaska because he is starving to death, and some of you thought that was a violation of the NAP and some of you did not. I myself don't think it is a violation, because I assume the man's intent was to feed himself to keep from starving to death, rather than to steal for fun or profit or some other immoral reason.

Does the NAP demand that one should never initiate aggression against a person or their property for any reason

Motive doesn't matter, in my line of thinking.  Doesn't matter if you're starving, or if you're a fevered collector of 2013 Dinty Moore Beef Stew labels and pawing through my cans for them.  You still took from me without pursuing my blessing or a fair trade.

In fact, leaving reparations (cash, more chopped firewood, etc) doesn't make it right either.  Because:  My consent was never gained in regards to disposal of my property.  I may not want chopped firewood.  I may be coming next week with 8 cords of firewood on a flatbed.  And planning to live there for a year on the food I stashed.  And now I can't, because some opportunist broke into my place and ate my food.  The utility cost of the food will never be reimbursed by the cash or the firewood.

It's exactly the same argument the State makes in Eminent Domain:  We "need" it, but we'll give you what we THINK it is worth.  As if NEED absolves the immorality of the taking.

This is one of the reasons I love Ayn Rand so much... she bitchslaps this concept out of the park in damned near everything she writes.
26
Evolution / Re: Zero Aggression Principle in Zero-Sum circumstances?
« Last post by Zocken on June 30, 2015, 12:42:58 pm »
I know this is an old topic, but hey, I just got here so cut me a little slack ;D

I just learned about the NAP about a week or two ago from this forum. I think I understand this concept and it seems simple and straightforward to me: Don't initiate violence and don't steal people's stuff. I read the analogy about the man breaking into a cabin in Alaska because he is starving to death, and some of you thought that was a violation of the NAP and some of you did not. I myself don't think it is a violation, because I assume the man's intent was to feed himself to keep from starving to death, rather than to steal for fun or profit or some other immoral reason.

Does the NAP demand that one should never initiate aggression against a person or their property for any reason
27
General Discussion / Re: Quotes: Add your favorite!
« Last post by Loner11bravo on June 29, 2015, 10:49:01 pm »
I am who I am, and that's all that I am--- Popeye
28
I think we are all on the same page here: anything that involves the Feds being in control over is wrong amdnwill end disastrously.

As for the SCROTUMS ruling on gay marriage is another retarded argument that no one should have. People should be able to marry who they want ( same goes for those who do the marrying). My wife and I were married this May and we didn't sign any papers, it was a Christian wedding, her father officiated, we said our vows, swamped rings and then swamped spit. It was great. And yet still no courts involved.
29
Evolution / Re: What can one do?
« Last post by Loner11bravo on June 29, 2015, 10:34:45 pm »
It helps to know a bit about how the system works, so you can know how much freedom you can get away with without putting yourself into much risk.  Many of the state's edicts are well nigh unenforceable, or carry minuscule chances of actually being caught and prosecuted under.  Many times the penalties are not that great, either.  Everyone has to make his own risk/benefit analysis I suppose. 

I'm not categorically opposed to taking out loans.  Sometimes they are the best way of leveraging your earning potential.  You just have to make sure it makes sense from a time value of money perspective before you go into debt.  For instance, I took out private student loans to put myself through law school, but the extra earning potential and expanded career opportunities in a field I enjoy made it worth it.  Likewise, my old lady and I found a great deal on a house at the bottom of the housing market and locked in a super low rate with the result that our house payment is a good bit less than what rent would be on a house like this.

Buying local with cash is good... having a source of cash income that never sees a bank is the best practice from a privacy standpoint... but I also like to buy a lot of stuff online, to avoid sales tax.  I make frequent use of my Amazon Prime free 2-day shipping.  Many times I find it easier to buy stuff this way and have it show up on my doorstep in a couple days than having to remember a list and go out and buy it locally.

I do believe you have the best advice and stuck to my original question. Thank you for that
30
I'd really be surprised if they interpret CCW/CHP's, etc to have nationwide reciprocity. That would mean banned areas and states like Mordor, NYC, NJ, MD, etc would have to accept carry permits from states that dont even have a training requirement, like PA, Alabama, etc. I just cant envision this happening.


That's what I keep warning people about who push for National CCW or Fed mandated reciprocity.

The net result is always "what works for NYC/Chicago/DC ought to work fine for rural Wyoming!"
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10