tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post6806838915559502303..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Libertarian: Left, Center, and Rightbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-81168626013713368822016-12-09T20:12:57.933-08:002016-12-09T20:12:57.933-08:00I think that I can define "vocal aggression&q...I think that I can define "vocal aggression": them's fightin' words.<br /><br />In brief response to Sonja above (below): nobody said nuthin' 'bout specific culture. Appreciation of an argument and a body of work does not imply tacit agreement with every idea espoused by an author. I see this type of argument: X agrees with this proposition of Y; X must also agree with every specific sub-proposition of Y. A counter-example: I would be highly critical of Rothbard with someone familiar with his work; on the other hand, I would praise Rothbard as an illuminary thinker to somebody unaware of his work.<br /><br />A culture is whatever people say that it is. In the same way that money is typically the most marketable commodity. An extension of the invisible hand, a concept that most people concede but grudgingly, is an understanding of faith: the social sciences - by lack of observable first causes, and by dint of the intangibility of human cognition - are Prometheus: the giver of knowledge forever bound to suffer for his hubris. <br /><br />What becomes of Man once he harnesses fire? I don't think that I read the ending of the myth but, I'm pretty sure the author never mentioned hybrid cars or GMOs.<br /><br />It is perhaps a tragedy...the nature of human cognition and by extension, human action. We simply don't know what makes people tick; highly concentrated cognitionists (if I can coin a term) agree that it is hard enough to understand oneself. <br /><br />However, while fashions come and go like recurring dreams, the laws of economics (i.e. the effects of exchange) are simple facts of basic physics: the allocation of scarce resources. Allocation is the tricky word. It implies intent. What is scarce is even subject to debate. People keep making a big deal about the availability of gasoline; but, I live in the United States of Driving Everywhere Anyway. Creating capital and trading it is a hallmark of advanced civilization. You simply can't have this without that first.<br /><br />The NAP is at first inherent in exchange. First a man exchanges his time - his (scarce) present; then, man rewarded for his acceptance of risk and allocation of initial capital reaps a harvest in greater bounty than he and his family can consume. Somewhere else, Mr. Ford assembles many vehicles. And so on. If we, at first, define the survival - the necessary prerequisites of living - of man as an act of aggression; then, it follows that man can define any obstacle to his immediate satisfaction an aggression. And an actable aggression or an acceptable initiation of counterforce. <br /><br />Necessary requisites need to be conceded in a definition of aggression for human exchange. What are those requisites? While subject to interpretation, most consist of the 10 commandment stuff that no one really argues against. Nobody says that "thou shalt not murder" is debatable because the logical leap, while considerable, is ingrained in civilized man. Why? One could argue: that man may be someone who is producing something that you would like to trade for. Or perhaps he produces something that a trading partner of yours likes. Or, maybe, because the Lord's written word says not to. Why doesn't violence and modern capital accumulation seem to go hand in hand like it did for 10,00 years of recorded plunder and general capital stasis? <br /><br />Economics requires people to concede that non-aggression and capital accumulation makes everybody better off. If you don't build an argument of human interaction from here; then, I don't know what the point of all this discussion is. alaska3636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11213916326491175842016-12-07T09:22:45.812-08:002016-12-07T09:22:45.812-08:00Sonja, are you an uSA citizen residing within thei...Sonja, are you an uSA citizen residing within their jurisdiction?<br /><br />Do you have a driver's license?<br />Have you driven a car on a public road?<br />Did you attend government school?<br />Did you attend a state university?<br />Have you attended a city concert/event?<br />etc, etc.<br /><br />I do not think that you are sinless in taking advantage of the violence due to "arbitrary authoritarian demands of certain individuals."JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67026537732941517122016-12-06T23:46:40.856-08:002016-12-06T23:46:40.856-08:00No. Clearly you are the one with the reading comp...No. Clearly you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. Case in point: I never ever said anywhere that you were supportive of taxation. (And yes, *you* had the same problem in our last conversation.)<br /><br />You may not be supportive of taxation, but you comply with it. Therefore you do not own any real property. You can call it taxation or paying tribute or whatever you like. But you admit that you have no defense of what you like to call yours (except compliance). And the point is that no reasonable person can call something his own if he has no defense in regard to use, control, or any other aspect that might be imagined to be ownership. And this (defending your property) you admit you don't have; it is something which is foreign to you. That is because property ownership is foreign to you. You have been dispossessed. And yes, if you want to own property, you'll need to understand what it means to own property. Until then, you can just make nice jokes about owning property, but having no defense of that property---oh, but the "libertarian theorists" are very good on the defense of property. Are they defending your property? Well no...Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-1952364324412189502016-12-06T17:37:29.532-08:002016-12-06T17:37:29.532-08:00You really cannot read, can you. It was true in t...You really cannot read, can you. It was true in the previous conversation - where I dedicated an entire post in reply - and it is true in this thread.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-65883153591645524652016-12-06T14:48:07.583-08:002016-12-06T14:48:07.583-08:00> What is required is a defense of control,
&...> What is required is a defense of control, <br />> use and disposition of my property. On <br />> this, libertarian theorists are quite good.<br /><br />This is really really hilarious. They're "quite good," eh. Do I have "defense of control?" Well, no, but they're quite good. Do I have "defense of use?" Well, no, but they're quite good. Do I have "defense of disposition?" Well...<br /><br />Very funny. You are a real crack up.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-531217945170955042016-12-06T14:41:26.151-08:002016-12-06T14:41:26.151-08:00You just don't get it do you? You own nothing...You just don't get it do you? You own nothing, not even your life. You exercise *temporary* control over some things, including some aspects of your life as long as you comply with the arbitrary authoritarian demands of certain individuals. Oh, and these individuals get to independently decide when your compliance and deference is adequate. You own nothing. The only thing that matters is your compliance---and maybe when you are productive enough toward the ends of your own enslavement. And, as you said, they have the big guns. But you don't get it. And you think it matters that you "don't support" taxation? <br /><br />There is no taxation "of your property." You have no property.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76602814829522418782016-12-06T06:42:12.080-08:002016-12-06T06:42:12.080-08:00Sonja, you clearly have difficulty with reading co...Sonja, you clearly have difficulty with reading comprehension, as nothing I have written is supportive of taxation of me or my property; in fact, I wrote exactly the opposite.<br /><br />I need no theory of "property." What is required is a defense of control, use and disposition of my property. On this, libertarian theorists are quite good.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-7736849439241199512016-12-05T23:34:54.867-08:002016-12-05T23:34:54.867-08:00I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but it ...I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but it should have been "institutionalized systematic aggression against others." For someone who advocates that, it's hardly worth talking about "answers" or a plan for living in a civilized manner.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17417926989073184892016-12-05T22:44:38.344-08:002016-12-05T22:44:38.344-08:00Yes, so you have said...
...and yet if you stop p...Yes, so you have said...<br /><br />...and yet if you stop paying tribute on "your" home in the form of taxation, it will be taken from you. And if your masters decide to take your car or your life, they will take them too. And you are *satisfied*. I guess that says it all.<br /><br />Oh yes, and one shouldn't leave out that you also consistently advocate institutionalized aggression against others for no other reason than maintaining your benefits under the current "cultural" arrangement. <br /><br />It's all very nice for you, and there is no issue. So, obviously you need no "answers," because you are *satisfied* and have no problems. It's all very nice.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71080319565234993962016-12-04T05:47:47.115-08:002016-12-04T05:47:47.115-08:00Sonja, in thinking about your comments, I will off...Sonja, in thinking about your comments, I will offer: you seem to be after creating a framework of property ownership - also stating that this has not been satisfactorily offered by any leading thinkers from libertarian or objectivist viewpoints.<br /><br />I find this unnecessary. There is a well-understood framework of "what is mine" in most, if not all, societies. My clothes, my car, my home, etc. That these are "mine" is well recognized. I am satisfied with this framework.<br /><br />The issue is: who has the right of deciding control, use, and disposition of "what is mine"? This is where the argument lies, and on this point both libertarians and objectivists have very well-developed viewpoints and justifications.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59698949433750104132016-12-03T11:42:32.545-08:002016-12-03T11:42:32.545-08:00Sonya,that was a long response that, in short, man...Sonya,that was a long response that, in short, manages to miss the obvious in whole of human recorded history. The few exceptions that we find fit in the category of martyrs and gave birth to the phrase, the blood of the martyrs are the seed of the church.<br />And, yet, here we are.<br />Wishfull thinking is not a plan.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-91526867693341137642016-12-03T11:32:34.100-08:002016-12-03T11:32:34.100-08:00Sonya, your secret identity is safe. I do not know...Sonya, your secret identity is safe. I do not know what is Porcfest '16?JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-72505328775699048832016-12-03T09:57:17.375-08:002016-12-03T09:57:17.375-08:00To summarize Sonja: "I know the answers, but ...To summarize Sonja: "I know the answers, but I will not tell you. Once you think you have the answers, you tell me."<br /><br />Sonja, I suspect you could have just put your "answers" out there for us to discuss in far fewer words than it took for you to write all of the above.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80096973713161971972016-12-02T22:19:21.321-08:002016-12-02T22:19:21.321-08:00One more comment for the bionic bug:
> You n...One more comment for the bionic bug: <br /><br />> You need no political theory in such <br />> a circumstance, therefore this entire <br />> dialogue would be of no concern to you. <br /><br />This assertion may be essentially correct, but not for the reasons you think. Politics is a catch-all phrase for efforts to extract something from some other individual or impose yourself on some other individual (under the illusion of legitimacy) in a way that would otherwise be considered clearly immoral---and, in particular, without his consent. You're right that I have no interest in and no time for politics. Perhaps you view immoral actions as integral to "human nature." Maybe you are correct. Perhaps that is why you embrace such action, e.g., politics, yourself.<br /><br />> There are many mountaintops where you can <br />> come quite close to living this dream.<br /><br />Here you very much misinterpret the implication(s) of what I'm saying. I have no interest in isolation. Actually, it is very much my objective to live within a community of known and trusted individuals. In particular, it is my objective to surround myself with individuals who reject politics. These would be individuals who, at some minimal level and by some means, have rejected immoral behavior as a standard and foundation for interaction with others. Believe it or not, there are such people.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-55587862268404254282016-12-02T18:42:50.609-08:002016-12-02T18:42:50.609-08:00P.S. To Jaime in Texas: Don't blow my cover, ...P.S. To Jaime in Texas: Don't blow my cover, but I think we met at Porcfest '16. I'm guessing you were at the very back of the family section of the campground. If that's you---here's sending a wave and a hug.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-35077695855845076152016-12-02T18:40:31.286-08:002016-12-02T18:40:31.286-08:00(continued)
4. Now, what about "the economy...(continued)<br /><br />4. Now, what about "the economy?" What about MetaCynic's worries about <br />killing the economy. What he is expressing, I think, is that he benefits <br />too much from the current society based on slavery to contemplate allowing <br />others to be free. He embraces the enslavement of others because of the <br />perceived benefits he receives from the rulers and their livestock management <br />principles. This is the clear way to see his "subjective community values." <br /><br />There are no "community values." There is no collective stomach. <br />There is no collective action. There is only individual action and <br />aggregate effect. If you are committed to the current paradigm based on <br />the aggregate effect of having personal wealth from "the economy" and <br />have no individual values that incline you toward an opposition toward <br />the enslavement of others, I can't help you.<br /><br />The question, for me, is not "what levels and for whom?" The question <br />is "aggression or nonaggression?" (the economy be damned).<br /><br />In fact, I don't think there is the slightest reason to live in total <br />isolation or with great discomfort for lack of wealth. Of course, it's <br />worth thinking about how to define wealth. Having control of lots of <br />federal reserve notes might be one definition, but it's one I reject on <br />moral grounds due to the attendant undesirable consequences---a ruling <br />class, widespread enslavement etc. But that's what we've got for an <br />emergent norm. I'm interested in something different. That something <br />is not "poverty" or "isolation" by any definition. But it certainly <br />remains to be seen the level of wealth which will be produced in a civilized <br />society. We do know a lot of wealth can be produced under the livestock <br />management practices of Austrian economics or some bastardized "free market" <br />Keynesian version of it---whatever you want to call what we've got. At some <br />level, for those of us who have figured out how to game the system, we have <br />been sheltered from a shortage of "wealth." We do not have a crisis of <br />supply in that regard. We (at least some of us as individuals) have a <br />moral crisis. We have a shortage of knowledge in using the "wealth" <br />available to us.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-44899637436707754452016-12-02T18:39:59.664-08:002016-12-02T18:39:59.664-08:00(continued)
3. Here is an important point: When ...(continued)<br /><br />3. Here is an important point: When two of us agree on a notion of property. <br />When we can say with mutual consent, "This is mine. I want to own it. <br />You want me to own it, and you will help me to defend it. This is yours. <br />You want to own it. I want you to own it, and I will help you defend it." <br />When we can say those things, then we will have property. What property? <br />Answer: Whatever property the two of us can defend.<br /><br />The way (in short): When our circle of understanding includes enough people <br />to defend enough and *the right kind* of property, then the non-aggression <br />principle can be practiced freely---in absolute form, without gray areas. <br />You will have a place to go. I will have a place to go. <br /><br />This place need not be an isolated mountain top, though obviously some level <br />of "isolation" (which I prefer to think of as "shelter") is obviously<br /> necessary/implied. But, in short, when we are able to own property---when <br />the (or at least a) divergent norm of property ownership is the norm among <br />us and is practicable at a critical level---then we will be free to determine <br />the level of our association and interaction. Note that I've said above <br />that "association precedes property." Have I just contradicted myself? <br />Actually, no. I'm using the word "association" in two different ways. <br />The first usage refers to the list and a foundation of consent and agreement <br />for building a civilized society. That comes first...and that (perhaps) <br />on some, possibly not shared, foundation of morality. The latter use <br />of "association" is interaction within civilized society. If we agree that <br />I should have the option to be free of your existence---and I grant you the <br />same option with regard to my existence---at least in principle---then we <br />have the hope, and option, to participate in civilized interaction, to <br />*choose* the second kind of association.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-91937237707774365092016-12-02T18:39:29.139-08:002016-12-02T18:39:29.139-08:00(continued)
2. Next subject: What about the gray...(continued)<br /><br />2. Next subject: What about the gray areas? How can it be that the NAP <br />can be applied so absolutely...on the ground? Property is the key. You <br />must include in your list a foundation for property ownership. (You must <br />realize that this problem is not solved satisfactorily either by Rand, <br />Rothbard, Mises, and other libertarian mouthpieces---you must realize that <br />the emergent norm of title ownership on our society enforced by a ruling <br />class is not acceptable. You must decide if you want to own property. <br />Proudhon decided property ownership was a bad idea. The emergent norm for <br />human society is that the rulers---illegitimately---own all property.) <br />What is a reasonable divergent norm for property---what is the framework <br />for finding such a thing? I can answer that question. Can you? <br /><br />When you can, I think you will find that the "gray areas" arise largely from <br />the fact that humans have been essentially dispossessed of property. <br />Just like people before van Leeuwenhoek couldn't imagine invisible creatures <br />getting into their mouths and making them sick, it is difficult for people <br />who are so used to being dispossessed to contemplate property ownership. <br />It is not impossible. There are people who can help if you're willing. <br />But at some level, partially because I'm not going to tell you and you <br />need to individually internalize your understanding of property, you need <br />to do this work, at least to some extent, yourself. At least if you deny <br />there is a question, I will not---in some sense, I cannot---help you. You're <br />stuck like BM. To harp on this a little: saying "libertarians can't agree" <br />is a cop out. Don't think collectively. Think in terms of you and one other <br />person, say me. We don't need the world to agree; we don't need all <br />libertarians to agree.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33655055696485019162016-12-02T18:10:57.512-08:002016-12-02T18:10:57.512-08:00I would like to offer some reply to JaimeinTexas a...I would like to offer some reply to JaimeinTexas and MetaCynic. The answer, unfortunately, is not short. It is, in fact, too long for this space. Nevertheless, let me try to outline an answer, with at least the suggestion that there is one.<br /><br />1. There is a way to get there. There are many factors (aspects to the description of the way) and it is certainly not easy. At least I have not found it easy. But I am convinced it is not impossible. At least I am not yet convinced it is impossible as BM and MC seem to be, as Eric Peters might say, "because human nature." I'll admit that maybe they are right. I'll admit that there is something which can be called human nature. But I think too much is called human nature. Example: Before it was known that tiny living organisms on the skin and other places cause sickness in humans, the level of hygiene in humans was lower. It could have been said that it was human nature for people to eat with dirty hands (and to suffer the consequence of getting sick). It turns out it was possible for many people to internalize the understanding that being more careful about hygiene would lead to not getting sick. In short people started washing their hands. Did human nature change? Certainly the norm for hygiene changed. There was a divergent norm. I hope the point of what I'm trying to say is clear. I know people who have internalized the non-aggression principle as I have stated it. The first thing to realize is that it is theoretically irrelevant if most people have not. Yes, it is practically relevant at the moment, but it is an error to call this "human nature" and resolve that nothing can be done.<br /><br />What to do: First realize that the framework for action is between two individuals. Stop thinking collectively about "society changing." What is really needed is the recognition that the emergent norm for human society has been a society resting at a very deep level on slavery. Thus, we do not need to hope for a preservation of this uncivilized society. We need to create a civilized society on a different foundation. This starts with two people agreeing on principles on which such a society can be based. I have what I think is a pretty good attempt at a list of those principles. There are not so many of them. They are all, at least in my opinion, not unreasonable. I know a small number of people who have internalized them. Here's going to be the hard part for you to swallow (but if you think about it, it is not unreasonable): I am not going to list them for you. You need to come up with your own list. Then we, as two individuals, can honestly compare our lists, and determine if we have the foundation upon which to proceed. Much more could be said, but I will leave it at that for now. I will say to Bionic Mosquito et al that to continue to assert that common agreement on such a list (including a framework for property ownership different from "whatever goes on around here") is impossible is counterproductive. One must start the work of determining what he, as an individual, thinks is reasonable. One other comment: At least Montecristo above came up with some kind of list. It is incompatible with my list. I suggested my objections. He can either change or remain outside my "circle of agreement." Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80922691424752545342016-12-02T18:08:01.660-08:002016-12-02T18:08:01.660-08:00I seem to be having trouble with word length limit...I seem to be having trouble with word length limits in replying. Let me try several submissions in small bites. I apologize in advance to Bionic Mosquito.Sonja Cramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67258071412351545362016-12-02T15:01:49.375-08:002016-12-02T15:01:49.375-08:00Sonja,
NAP gray areas are real. They deal with ma...Sonja,<br />NAP gray areas are real. They deal with magnitudes. We all agree that noise, pollution and noxious odors violate the NAP. The question is at what levels and for whom? <br /><br />Someone moving to the city from the country will find urban noise insufferable and demand that something be done about sounds that urban dwellers find perfectly tolerable. Who should prevail? A city person moving to the country may very well find that the odor of manure fertilized fields to be intolerable, yet his rural neighbors have no objection to this. Whose preference should prevail? Pollution violates the NAP because it will destroy health, but reducing pollution to zero can destroy the economy. Should we nevertheless demand that pollution be reduced to zero?<br /><br />It seems to me that for each of these three particular examples the prevailing culture - subjective community values - will set the threshold for violation of the NAP even in a libertarian society. To minimize potential conflict over gray areas, secession and decentralized power must be possible. MetaCynicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23632520096678756852016-12-02T12:06:30.274-08:002016-12-02T12:06:30.274-08:00"I must stress again that libertarianism is n..."I must stress again that libertarianism is not a comprehensive theory of ethics. Libertarians do not claim that all non-agressive actions are moral or just, only that aggressive actions are unjust. In other words, the Non-Aggression Principle provides a minimal threshold of justice. To evaluate the morality or justness of a non-aggressive action, a libertarian must bring a complementary system of ethics - a system of ethics compatible with the Non-Agression Principle - to bear."<br /><br />- Jason Jewell in "Christian Faith and Social Justice: Five Views", p. 23.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22519763782932837332016-12-02T05:58:21.784-08:002016-12-02T05:58:21.784-08:00Sonja, I would like to hear how we can get to the ...Sonja, I would like to hear how we can get to the libertarian society you wish for, given current reality on the ground. I cannot find a path without the NAP being violated on way or another.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-9084781765930619062016-12-02T05:05:56.180-08:002016-12-02T05:05:56.180-08:00"A human should be able to live his life *ent..."A human should be able to live his life *entirely unaffected* by other humans and unaware of their existence, should he desire to do so (period)."<br /><br />Feel free. You need no political theory in such a circumstance, therefore this entire dialogue would be of no concern to you. You need not take into account the reality of human nature in such a circumstance - other than the reality of self-sufficiently providing food, shelter, and clothing.<br /><br />There are many mountaintops where you can come quite close to living this dream.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36953263414630983652016-12-02T05:00:45.877-08:002016-12-02T05:00:45.877-08:00I have dealt with each of these objections before ...I have dealt with each of these objections before and elsewhere, but will do so again here because you offer the opportunity to touch on several objections in one succinct reply:<br /><br />“I disagree…..punishment for aggression is subjectively decided by the victims…”<br /><br />The victim decides to shoot the child as “punishment” for stealing the apple. Is this what libertarian theory condones? If you are correct in your assertion, the answer is yes. As I have suggested to the first person who made such an argument, if so, libertarian theory is a dead theory – having absolutely no future in a world occupied by humans.<br /><br />Of course, you are incorrect in this assertion.<br /><br />“…but "aggression" and "property" are objectively derived concepts.””<br /><br />Libertarians amongst themselves cannot agree if intellectual property can be property, if abortion is the initiation of aggression, or if an individual can voluntarily agree to be a slave (among dozens of other disagreements). On each of these, different conclusions can be reached by two different individuals applying the non-aggression principle. What is objective about any of this?<br /><br />“[Culture] is not a relationship between unknown millions; the relationships are between people who know each other…”<br /><br />We agree, completely. This is why I don’t spend any time trying to define the subjective terms “punishment,” “aggression,” or “property.” They will be defined by those who choose to interact with each other. If you do not like the definitions offered by one group, you are free to try to change their definition or change your relationships.<br /><br />“The NAP is a “principle;” there is no wiggle room for subjectivity with a principle…”<br /><br />Human beings are subjective actors; they are not subject to being modeled or programmed. It is the application of the principle that causes difficulty (see the examples offered above).<br /><br />“…so absolutely nothing happens in any relationship between two or more people, without the agreement of all affected by the intended actions…”<br /><br />Yes…and no. A libertarian world – the real world, not the world of utopian dreamers – will be a world of great decentralization. It will be a world of vastly more choices in terms of political relationships and structures; it will NOT be a world of perfect choices.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.com