tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post2923917731130292274..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Robert Wenzel, Stop Diggingbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-291763898172692462016-02-13T08:54:18.894-08:002016-02-13T08:54:18.894-08:00any attempt at encirclement that you describe is g...<i>any attempt at encirclement that you describe is guaranteed to lead to bloodshed.</i><br /><br />I see encirclement as a BIG step away from the initiation of violence and would need to be used sparingly, like when dealing with truly horrible situations that might not rise to the level of a violation of the NAP. People would know and understand ahead of time the appropriate circumstances for its application. <br /><br /><i>And by the way, how will anarcho-capitalists deal with a group of people that have made a decision to form a state?</i><br /><br />What does that mean? A bunch of people on their own property decide to contractually allow certain members of their group the right to initiate violence against them? It's their property. It's their bodies. What's the problem? Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-26069282802656304932016-02-09T14:08:41.454-08:002016-02-09T14:08:41.454-08:00Bionic,
With respect, I have not seen the "n...Bionic,<br /><br />With respect, I have not seen the "numerous" answers to these questions, (especially in the above listed post). So, I will just wing it, and feel free to let me know if I didn't get something right!<br /><br />I think you disagree that the trespass is in and of itself justification for the shooting of the farmer. To you, there needs to be something else to push the defender over that precipice into violent defense. The thief is "...in fear for his life", and this is why the shooting is just. <br /><br />Yet, the property owner, in spite of all of the demonstrable evidence that he is experiencing fear (i.e. taking steps to prevent aggression), as well as the fact that there is a stranger present on the property who could be there to kill cannot defend himself with lethal force. Why?<br /><br />Perhaps the farmer was just coming by to "borrow" an apple...Rick Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751593125225334255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10867100842508479762016-02-09T13:18:32.878-08:002016-02-09T13:18:32.878-08:00Rick
I have answered these questions numerous tim...Rick<br /><br />I have answered these questions numerous times, including to you above, at February 9, 2016 at 9:40 AMbionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16200579696680715042016-02-09T12:26:15.240-08:002016-02-09T12:26:15.240-08:00Bionic,
Do you have anything to say about these t...Bionic,<br /><br />Do you have anything to say about these things from above?<br /><br />"Funny- we come to the same conclusion for different reasons! My reason he can shoot the farmer is that the apple thief is now on his property, and he can defend his property with lethal force against the farmer's trespass."<br /><br />Do you agree or disagree that the trespass is justification alone for shooting the farmer in defense?<br /><br />Also, do you have any thoughts on this?<br /><br />"Can your reasoning not be applied to the farmer in the original scenario, especially in the context of having guard dogs? Clearly, the farmer is, on an ongoing basis, in fear of aggression- enough to employ guard dogs to protect the property. Since it is demonstrable that the farmer is "in fear for his life, it is self-defense" when the dogs protect him and repel (or destroy) the aggressor, correct?"Rick Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751593125225334255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11520987767495662352016-02-09T10:58:57.895-08:002016-02-09T10:58:57.895-08:00"Either each individual is free to be judge, ..."Either each individual is free to be judge, jury and executioner, or individuals within a community agree to / accept some common rules of behavior and adjudication.<br /><br />I have made my view on this clear."<br /><br />Ironically, I know- what have you made your view clear on? What are you referring to?<br /><br />The part before that reminds me of Lawrence Vance's article on LRC today, especially this part:<br /><br />"If you answered that you should decide these questions then you are a libertarian—whether you call yourself a libertarian. If you answered that the government should decide these questions then you are a statist—whether you call yourself a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal, a conservative, a moderate, a progressive, a populist, a neoconservative, a democratic socialist, a centrist, an independent, or non-partisan. If you answered that the government should decide most of these questions then you are simply an inconsistent statist.<br /><br />This does not mean that you decide these things in a vacuum. Just because you decide does not mean that you don’t consult your family, friends, club, church, pastor, priest, minister, physician, psychologist, psychiatrist, coworkers, and/or acquaintances. Ultimately, however, the decision is yours to make. This does not mean that that things are all safe, healthy, moral, or a good idea. And this does not mean that anyone or everyone should do any or all of these things.<br /><br />It simply means that in a free society, you decide. In an authoritarian society, the government decides. Libertarians believe in a free society. Statists believe in a society heavily controlled by legislation, laws, regulations, judges, bureaucrats, ordinances, prisons, violence, force, aggression, coercion, badges, and guns.<br /><br />I will take the free society."Rick Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751593125225334255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76548841116911057662016-02-09T09:40:04.719-08:002016-02-09T09:40:04.719-08:00"How can you know for sure as an "outsid..."How can you know for sure as an "outsider" what the feelings are of either the farmer or apple thief at any given time?"<br /><br />I cannot. Now we come full circle. Who will decide what constitutes "aggression"? Who will decide who "initiated aggression"? Who will decide appropriate punishment or restitution? Who will judge these actions?<br /><br />Either each individual is free to be judge, jury and executioner, or individuals within a community agree to / accept some common rules of behavior and adjudication.<br /><br />I have made my view on this clear.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28180788602349358012016-02-09T07:56:49.903-08:002016-02-09T07:56:49.903-08:00"As the apple thief is rightly in fear for hi..."As the apple thief is rightly in fear for his life, it is self-defense.<br /><br />Given the circumstance I have described, perfectly justified via a proper application of the NAP, I say."<br /><br />Funny- we come to the same conclusion for different reasons! My reason he can shoot the farmer is that the apple thief is now on his property, and he can defend his property with lethal force against the farmer's trespass.<br /><br />Since you are basing your decision on "intent", I have a few questions:<br /><br />How can you know for sure as an "outsider" what the feelings are of either the farmer or apple thief at any given time?<br /><br />Who is to determine if one is "rightly" or "wrongly" in fear for his life?<br /><br />Can your reasoning not be applied to the farmer in the original scenario, especially in the context of having guard dogs? Clearly, the farmer is, on an ongoing basis, in fear of aggression- enough to employ guard dogs to protect the property. Since it is demonstrable that the farmer is "in fear for his life, it is self-defense" when the dogs protect him and repel (or destroy) the aggressor, correct?Rick Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751593125225334255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15407383888683044472016-02-09T07:00:10.311-08:002016-02-09T07:00:10.311-08:00As the apple thief is rightly in fear for his life...As the apple thief is rightly in fear for his life, it is self-defense. <br /><br />Given the circumstance I have described, perfectly justified via a proper application of the NAP, I say. bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59045604183203845482016-02-09T06:44:59.645-08:002016-02-09T06:44:59.645-08:00"BM: " Farmer Jones finds out about the ..."BM: " Farmer Jones finds out about the apple, comes to the man’s home and shoots him."<br /><br />If the homeowner/apple theif shoots the farmer under these circumstances, has the homeowner violated the NAP?"<br /><br />Hey Bionic- have you any thoughts on the above question?Rick Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751593125225334255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52712651407463264862016-02-08T11:58:28.064-08:002016-02-08T11:58:28.064-08:00I've since bowed out of the back and forth. It...I've since bowed out of the back and forth. It's not that I'm unwilling. It's not that I'm not convinced of my position - save for a few gray areas. But, like I've said elsewhere, libertarianism doesn't address every gray area that could be at all times - No philosophy really does.<br /><br />But, I have bowed out because RW doesn't seem to understand his stance can be used to defend the State we know in this reality, and he may not be interested in hearing any such claim. He's also giving traits to folks who disagree that said folks obviously aren't holding (Why would we all be here talking about this if we believed Capital G government worked?), and I don't think it's moving the discussion anywhere worthwhile.<br /><br />He called me out, I responded in the comment section of the article in question, and my comment isn't seen. Of course he's not obligated to show or do anything - for all I know the fault isn't his (but, I did try twice). I'd think that a libertarian thinker would welcome adverse opinion - If I'm wrong he can refute it. Or anyone can.<br /><br />My thoughts can be summarized as follows: Wenzel, this PPS you hold so dear has arrived, and the property holders are inside the beltway. If advocates of Governance vs Governments are minarchists, then Wenzel might be the Statist. If he can defend a farmer defending the apple with lethal force, why not defend the State - should we resist parking tickets, taxes, etc. they can argue just as easily we're violating their property rights. After all, they claimed the land first. (I'm exaggerating, but the point is there.)<br /><br />Without intending to leech traffic, I have a post up on my blog addressing ... whatever it is he's saying. It's titled "Where does it End, Part II"Black Flaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04264200450145227142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-76472915551401580472016-02-08T07:37:45.662-08:002016-02-08T07:37:45.662-08:00BM: " Farmer Jones finds out about the apple,...BM: " Farmer Jones finds out about the apple, comes to the man’s home and shoots him."<br /><br />If the homeowner/apple theif shoots the farmer under these circumstances, has the homeowner violated the NAP?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16466930384247466023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-18122225432155444952016-02-07T17:58:51.118-08:002016-02-07T17:58:51.118-08:00Bob Roddis, any attempt at encirclement that you d...Bob Roddis, any attempt at encirclement that you describe is guaranteed to lead to bloodshed. And by the way, how will anarcho-capitalists deal with a group of people that have made a decision to form a state? <br /><br />As for RW, he says that it would be forbidden for other people to intervene on private property but who forbids it? And besides with no due process you can just make any assertion of an NAP violation without evidence and exact summary retribution. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-16328215704549030522016-02-07T15:39:08.604-08:002016-02-07T15:39:08.604-08:00There comes a point where punishment crosses the l...There comes a point where punishment crosses the line into the initiation of aggression, thereby a violation of the NAP. Your example fits this description, it seems to me.<br /><br />(Others might disagree with my conclusion. I believe I have addressed the possibilities associated with this agreement in my various comments and posts on this topic.)<br /><br />In any case (and given my conclusion), it is consistent with the NAP for third parties to intervene - provided they do so voluntarily and without forcing others to fund their efforts.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-18923475614524203342016-02-07T13:21:40.666-08:002016-02-07T13:21:40.666-08:00I still think that most of the problems caused by ...I still think that most of the problems caused by someone who executes children for trespassing can be solved by contracts along with encirclement and concerted refusals to deal without invading the property of the jerk. But not all of them. Suppose someone lives on a tract of land and announces that he is going to viciously torture anyone who might even accidently trespass upon his land and he’s able to withstand the encirclement and refusal to deal for years. Some grannies and their granddaughters are blown off course and inadvertently parachute onto his property. They land on some rocky land, causing no damage whatsoever. He claims to the right to imprison them and to inflict unimaginable tortures upon them forever. According to RW, I think it would/should be forbidden for outsiders to invade his land in order to rescue them. And we should like it. And if you don’t like it, you do not support AnCap (like Walter Block). Do I have that right or am I missing something.<br /><br />I think the problem arises by over-emphasizing the protection of physical property over the protection of bodies. The AnCap purpose of protecting physical property is ultimately to protect bodies. Since the neither the outlier landowner nor his land have been harmed, he simply cannot be allowed to harm the bodies of inadvertent trespassers. The punishment must fit the crime. <br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-74418241325338445022016-02-06T07:23:45.852-08:002016-02-06T07:23:45.852-08:00“Old Coot may consider himself part of a different...“Old Coot may consider himself part of a different community or he and his family as their own separate community. By what authority does one "community" judge the NAP by their ethical system and then punitively apply this to a different community?”<br /><br />We need not worry too much about this. If the father of the child and the friends and relatives of the father believe the old coot went too far (and to be clear, I am certain the old coot violated the NAP in his unilateral choice of punishment; if he did not, then the NAP is a meaningless political theory), they will handle it as they see fit. If they are customers of some private security and insurance agency, they might appeal to it. <br /><br />Or they might decide to just shoot the old coot. We need not debate if this is consistent with the NAP or not – they won’t care. For some reason we want to remove human action from the application of libertarian theory. What is the point of that? In our application of (thin) libertarian theory, we must recognize and take into account human nature, human frailties, and human emotion – otherwise we are like the communists, wanting to create some “new man.”<br /><br />Some new man: Wenzel wants to create a new man that will not retaliate for his daughter being shot for stealing an apple. This is a real practical political theory.<br /><br />In any case, the action of the father and his friends will help shape the future culture of the neighborhood – for good or bad. But the next old coot might think twice before shooting the next little girl for picking an apple – which, I say, is a good thing.<br /><br />And this is (one of) my point(s).<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-19735253002520310542016-02-06T07:22:59.833-08:002016-02-06T07:22:59.833-08:00“In a PPS, or AnCap I have thought that the NAP pl...“In a PPS, or AnCap I have thought that the NAP plus property rights are the highest principles (given thin application).”<br /><br />You know the saying: better dead than red? The idea being that it is better to defend with nuclear holocaust than succumb to the communist threat (no freedom, no property, no nothing). But is this so? As I have read in a book regarding the ethics of nuclear deterrence: the red can choose to be dead; the dead can’t choose anything.<br /><br />Life precedes property. There is no reason for me to be concerned about property rights if the NAP does not apply to my physical person. This is what the father of the little girl is leaning on.<br /><br />“Given my framework, these really are the great questions! The $64K questions indeed! Given what I’m up to, they lead me right to the point I’m trying to get at, the questions I am asking myself. It is this: By what principles, values, and ethics, are we to attempt to answer these excellent questions?” <br /><br />The NAP – even taking into account it applies to life as well as property – cannot give definitive answers. The best I have found from others (and the four corners of my mind) it that the NAP offers guidelines at best. I am certain that via the NAP it is possible to identify if a specific punishment has crossed the line into initiation of aggression – not where the exact line is, but that the punishment has crossed the line. You need not agree with me on this – it doesn’t change the answer to the bigger question.<br /><br />You want to remove the child from the equation as it muddies the waters? I will do so, but not before pointing out: my entire point in going to this example was precisely to muddy the waters – more specifically, to offer an egregious and shocking example. <br /><br />Let’s make it an adult – and to avoid any risk of doubt about age, a balding, graying man. Now, of course, we cannot be certain that he has all his mental capacities, but let’s also remove that gray area.<br /><br />He has picked an apple from the tree. He ate it. He went home to nap on the sofa. Farmer Jones finds out about the apple, comes to the man’s home and shoots him.<br /><br />Has punishment crossed the line into initiation of aggression? I say yes. However, if we cannot say yes to this based on libertarian theory, then we must admit that the definition of aggression is completely cultural and outside of the NAP – this admission doesn’t cause me any grief, nor does it dilute for me the value of the NAP. Of course, this admission only further strengthens my point regarding culture in the grander discussion on this topic.<br /><br />So, by “what principles, values, and ethics, are we to attempt to answer these excellent questions?” If it is cultural (and I suggest to at least some degree it is), there inherently cannot be a one-size-fits-all answer.<br /><br />“And by using the word “we” there, I may have fallen into our constant collectivist trap. Must we *all* agree with these principles and ethics?” <br /><br />I suggest within a given region, the answer is (on the big stuff) yes. This is the beauty of McMaken’s post. Decentralization – always; this will afford ever-increasing choices for individuals to find a good fit. Not a perfect fit and not infinite choices – just a good fit.<br /><br />“Or is the beauty of the NAP and absolute respect for property that these allow us to settle disputes even in cases where we disagree about the other principles and ethics.”<br /><br />To reiterate – if I don’t have property in my body, I don’t have property. <br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-2082483257563281182016-02-06T06:19:22.810-08:002016-02-06T06:19:22.810-08:00Hi Bionic,
Your back and forth with Wenzel has in...Hi Bionic,<br /><br />Your back and forth with Wenzel has inspired me to write on the topic of governance, government and the NAP. If you can make the time I would appreciate you taking a look and giving me any kind of feedback.<br /><br />http://bromidesandkibitzes.blogspot.com/2016/02/governance-government-and-nap.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07856155315463065378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60378118647263928892016-02-06T05:38:40.166-08:002016-02-06T05:38:40.166-08:00BM: I will ask you - do you find it consistent wit...BM: I will ask you - do you find it consistent with the NAP for a child to be shot for trespass under the conditions I have described in my post and during my conversation?<br /><br />If so, explain.<br /><br />dpong: To judge whether it is consistant with the NAP we need appeal to some other principles or values or ethics that is not contained directly within the NAP and respect for property. Not all "communities" may chose the same principles to decide. Old Coot may consider himself part of a different community or he and his family as their own separate community. By what authority does one "community" judge the NAP by their ethical system and then punitively apply this to a different community? Again, this is a theoretical question, and I think a difficult one. I'm not sure "I know it when I see it" is a satisfying answer. <br /><br />Still, I agree with you that the best chance for an AnCap society would be one where the overwhelming majority share culture and customs which would greatly lower the incidents of this kind of outlier theoretical situation. <br /><br />I ask these questions, because I sometimes wonder if we have been so steeped in government propaganda that we still assume some "ether of justice" (or authority) that remains and hangs around in the absence of that supposed authority. Meh. I ponder. gpondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013837189187920036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15619529120922966712016-02-06T05:02:09.108-08:002016-02-06T05:02:09.108-08:00Hi BM,
I will try to respond to your questions, t...Hi BM,<br /><br />I will try to respond to your questions, though not necessarily answer them. All I am doing is questioning. And what I am questioning is the *principles* or *values* or *higher ethics(?)* by which we are judging this kind of situation. (I prefer the example not use a child, as that muddies the water ever so slightly, what with the minor thing and all.) <br /><br />But where you are asking for greater specificity of the actual details of this theoretical situation, perhaps to clarify it, I am doing the opposite. I am asking more abstract questions trying to get at first principles. In a PPS, or AnCap I have thought that the NAP plus property rights are the highest principles (given thin application). However, this idea that a NAP violation that is defended against aggressively is reason for the mob to rise up and put a bullet behind the defender’s ear whispers to me that there are some other principles guiding a decision such as that other than property rights. Something being held above NAP and property rights. It is this itch that I am scratching at. It seems to me that if we (in theory?) believe the NAP and property rights to be the ultimate mutually agreed upon first principles, and we did cling to that, then the bullet behind the ear would be unjustified. So there is something else, some other value or principle at play. <br /><br />So to your questions: <br />“BM: some questions are raised: how clearly marked are the borders and how well-known are these rules? Are there any disputes about these borders? Who, if anyone, will adjudicate the dispute? How will members of the community feel about the reasonableness of a child getting shot because she happened to cross a couple feet over the line a half-mile from the old coot’s house?”<br /><br />[Given my framework, looking for principles in the abstract, these questions are asking for specificity that I do not have. The one about “who will adjudicate” is interesting. By and large the answers to these questions do not get me to where *I’m* going.]<br /><br /> “BM: No matter how well-known or delineated, does a minor trespass justify the grossest violence against the so-called perpetrator? What is proper punishment for a violation? When, if ever, does the punishment cross the line and become a violation of the NAP? “<br /><br />[Given my framework, these really are the great questions! The $64K questions indeed! Given what I’m up to, they lead me right to the point I’m trying to get at, the questions I am asking myself. It is this: By what principles, values, and ethics, are we to attempt to answer these excellent questions? And by using the word “we” there, I may have fallen into our constant collectivist trap. Must we *all* agree with these principles and ethics? Or is the beauty of the NAP and absolute respect for property that these allow us to settle disputes even in cases where we disagree about the other principles and ethics. At any rate, these are the great questions that you asked. I’m certain I don’t have the answers.]<br /><br />Kind regards,<br />dponggpondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013837189187920036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31088846242810623922016-02-05T19:34:02.269-08:002016-02-05T19:34:02.269-08:00gpond, this is my point: well-meaning libertarians...gpond, this is my point: well-meaning libertarians cannot agree on several items of application of the theory. Walter Block has written 500 papers, many of these debating with other equally qualified libertarian scholar on some point of application or another.<br /><br />Yet, somehow, you seem to expect that the old coot and the father of the now-dead girl will see eye to eye on application of the NAP. On what basis would you believe this?<br /><br />Among many other open questions, there is no widely accepted (and definitive for every situation) application of punishment within the libertarian world. There are guidelines, but these are nothing more than guidelines.<br /><br />But somehow the old coot and the father - perhaps after a rousing intellectual discussion - will part as friends? The neighbors, now in fear for the safety of their own children - for a relatively harmless trespass - will leave well enough alone, hoping that the kickball doesn't cross that not-very-well-marked-and-in-any-case-disputed property line?<br /><br />I will ask you - do you find it consistent with the NAP for a child to be shot for trespass under the conditions I have described in my post and during my conversation?<br /><br />If so, explain.<br /><br />And always, as friends.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-53870976349252698432016-02-05T19:19:06.554-08:002016-02-05T19:19:06.554-08:00Wow. I will never argue for a wide-bodied consens...Wow. I will never argue for a wide-bodied consensus of well-meaning libertarian scholars. I have never been a 'consensus guy'. That means nothing to me.<br /><br />We will just have to agree on other terms. As friends, of course. :)<br />gpondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013837189187920036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42608324483965264322016-02-05T18:39:13.529-08:002016-02-05T18:39:13.529-08:00@ BM
Brilliant! Thank you.@ BM<br /><br />Brilliant! Thank you.Nick Badalamentihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14015961786370759940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11483328143695302962016-02-05T18:39:06.775-08:002016-02-05T18:39:06.775-08:00gpond, it depends why you say WOW.
Before we get ...gpond, it depends why you say WOW.<br /><br />Before we get to thick and thin, answer the questions I have raised. Demonstrate how the answers are strictly derivable from the NAP, with nothing other than the extension of the NAP as support.<br /><br />If you can answer these questions in this manner (and get a wide-body of libertarian scholars and thinkers to agree with you), I will be the one to say WOW.<br /><br />Very intelligent and well-meaning libertarian scholars cannot even agree on what specific events constitute "initiation of aggression," let alone all of the questions raised above. But have a go!<br /><br />:-) <br /><br />After this, we can discuss thick and thin.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-18712796660364376362016-02-05T18:35:17.734-08:002016-02-05T18:35:17.734-08:00Nick, that you said I was "thoughtful" i...Nick, that you said I was "thoughtful" is above anything I ever wanted. Correct, or not, I'm happy. I just like to think about things. gpondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01013837189187920036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31849012730339702662016-02-05T18:21:08.256-08:002016-02-05T18:21:08.256-08:00"One jurisdiction considers the punishment a ..."One jurisdiction considers the punishment a NAP violation(like Rothbard's gum example to some extent), the other does not...due to culture."<br /><br />During the European Middle Ages, a stranger who was accused of a violation was asked - before judgment: "what is your law?"<br /><br />In other words, the law from his tribe followed the person; the law was not based on geographic location.<br /><br />A new can of worms is opened while an old can of worms is closed. My intent isn't to go off on this tangent, only to offer that there have been other (reasonably NAP-consistent) possibilities in the past.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.com