1 vote

Does it violate NAP?

Arrest - seizing a person suspected or accused of a crime against his will and holding him captive.

Jury trial - How can the democratic vote or consensus of random people justify the inflicting of loss of liberty on a person?

Would NAP conforming security agencies be permitted to arrest and hold suspects for trial?

Arrest and trial are not self defense. In essence, a person is kidnapped and imprisoned on suspicion, pending a decision by some other people.

The principle of convincing some arbitrary number of people, beyond their subjective reasonable doubt, of the victim's guilt, is essentially a democratic principle. The principle assumes it is valid for one group of people to deny liberty or life to another person, and decide their fate, on the basis of a group consensus.

The punishment inflicted on the accused by the tribunal, to which he never consented to be subjected, is aggression. It is violence and coercion which is not in self defense. It works on the principle that twelve against one (the jury against the accused) is a sufficient ratio to override the rights of the accused.

Why twelve, instead of two, instead of two hundred?

Nothing in the arrest or trial of a suspect can be construed as self defense. It is, rather, the claim to jurisdiction over another person merely on suspicion and accusation, and the claim of a right to inflict harm or loss of liberty on that person, on the basis of what twelve random strangers think.

This applies equally to any security agency that a person has not voluntarily contracted to consent to. It too would be committing aggression in the process of arrest, trial and punishment.

It would seem to me that arrest on suspicion or accusation, as well as trial by any court to which the individual did not willingly subject himself by contract, would constitute aggression. This is so whether carried out by a security agency or by a publicly funded court, and so would violate NAP.

Furthermore, a person can always deny that they contracted to any such subjection (or to any contract, in fact). A contract based on signature is just a scrap of paper. If the alleged signer disputes it, that too must go before judgment, before a panel or tribunal of some sort, for a verdict.

The person is then essentially accused of breaking a contract, and so that accusation in turn is itself subject to a decision, necessarily by third parties.

This tribunal, or arbitration, suffers from all the problems described above for general trial where no contractual consent is claimed to have been granted.

On what grounds can one person, or group of people, override the claim of another person that they never agreed to a contract?

On what grounds can they then forcibly hold them to terms which they claim they never consented to?

It seems that any arrest or trial of another person inherently violates NAP, as all depend on validating aggression on the basis of some arbitrary consensus of other people, whether twelve or some other number.

Can a democratic principle of consensus ever nullify a person's right to be free of aggression?

If not, then all arrests and trials are invalid on NAP.

If it can, then that means the principle of consensus or democratic judgment is valid, as such.

If its valid for a group to decide the fate of an individual, this establishes the whole principle behind coercive government.

Pick your poison.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You're clearly mistaken

The NAP most certainly does preclude violence outside of self defense. That is, after all, it's definition. Non, aggression. Aggression is the use of force outside of self defense.

The definition,

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

clearly precludes kidnapping people on suspicion or accusation, as well as all the other things I listed. They are aggression, and for them to be legit, NAP can't be true. All of them, to be legit, would depend on the validity of the principle that a group can deny liberty to an individual on the basis of a sufficient consensus. This is true all the way down to contract, property, definitions, probable cause, etc.

You don't seem to understand what NAP means, so just read the definition.

Etymology time...

A private DEFENSE agency in a free society arresting an initiator of violence IS a defense against the violence of the aggressor.

A private court in a free society assembling a jury trial to determine what measures need to be taken to prevent the aggressor from committing future aggression IS a defense against future aggression.

defense (n.) - c.1300, "forbidding, prohibition," also "action of guarding or protecting," from Old French defense, from Latin defensus, past participle of defendere "ward off, protect"

Summary: "defense" = "forbidding, action of guarding or protecting, ward off"

The NAP does not forbid individuals or free societies through private agencies from defending (guard, protect. ward off) themselves or others against initiators of violence

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Let's fix that

A private DEFENSE agency group of people in a free society [what does this undefined interjection have to do with the statement, its meaningless] arresting forcing an initiator of violence an accused person not committing any violence at the time when he is forcefully kidnapped IS a defense against the violence of the aggressor. is not defense, but force against a presumably innocent individual.

A private court in a free society group of people assembling a jury trial another group of people to determine what measures need to be taken to prevent the aggressor from committing future aggression hold a person captive while deciding whether his accuser is lying or telling the truth IS a defense against future aggression aggression against a presumably innocent person, followed by the denial of that persons liberty on the basis of the democratic consensus of an arbitrary group of people, acting as judges, with the right to deny others liberty, not in self defense.

...

The NAP does not forbid individuals or free societies through private agencies groups of people from defending (guard, protect. ward off) themselves or others against initiators of violence.

--

This last paragraph has nothing to do with the earlier ones, since it is about guarding or self defense, not about arrests and trials, which are aggression as defined by NAP.

The problem of....

uncertainty causing a fallback to reasonable suspicion until further determination can be made is present in all flavors of judicial and law enforcement systems. Whether it is a NAP-based ancap society or minarchist or statist. Irrelevant to the discussion of whether the NAP allows arrests and jury trials.

You cannot remove "private courts". "private defense agencies", "free society", etc. etc. from my comments because the context of the discussion is a NAP-based ancap society. (You do realize that minarchists and other non-anarchists use the NAP too?)

You said:

"This last paragraph has nothing to do with the earlier ones, since it is about guarding or self defense, not about arrests and trials, which are aggression as defined by NAP."

The paragraph in question:

"The NAP does not forbid individuals or free societies through private agencies from defending (guard, protect. ward off) themselves or others against initiators of violence."

It has everything to do with the earlier statements since arresting a known aggressor prevents (DEFENDS) against further aggression. Likewise, a court determining measures needed to DEFEND against future aggression by a known aggressor is DEFENSE (action of guarding or protecting, to ward off, protect).

Arrests are actions that prevent (DEFEND against) known aggressors from further aggressing. The jury trial determines what measures are needed to guard against or ward off (DEFEND) against future aggression by known aggressors. The NAP allows defensive measures against aggressors and therefore allows arrests and trial juries.

All said paragraphs are about DEFENSE, which according to the NAP, DEFENSE is justified when countering initiators of aggression.

defense (n.) - c.1300, "forbidding, prohibition," also "action of guarding or protecting," from Old French defense, from Latin defensus, past participle of defendere "ward off, protect"

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I don't see that you've answered any of my points

I think they stand. All these things violate NAP and are based on the principle of group aggression against the individual being valid if the group thinks such aggression is in its interest, which outweighs that of the individual. This is antiNAP.

The NAP does not preclude...

third party individuals, groups or societies from coming to the violent defense of a victim of an initiator of aggression (groups and societies being comprised of individuals).

The NAP does not prohibit the staff of the Freedom Center (hypothetical) from collectively and violently responding to a firebombing of their building. The NAP does not prohibit them from forming a posse and hunting them down in response to their initiation of aggression.

"In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others. [Walter Block]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Notice the "defense of others" (i.e. - third parties [private defense agency, a gaggle of angry moms, etc]) in the quote.

Arrests and jury trials by third party collectives does not in any way violate the NAP if said actions are intended to prevent (DEFEND against) further aggression by the original initiator of violence. Defense is allowed by the NAP in response to initiation of violence.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Ohhh, weebles

You're like an eel!

First paragraph is a diversion, again talking about defense/guarding, which is not the topic. You either don't understand that its not the topic or you're being disingenuous, so quit that, thanks.

Paragraph two, yes the NAP does preclude arrest, trial, etc., as in all my previous comments, on the basis of suspicion. It is definitional.

You need a new NAP that permits force outside of self defense, for example in retaliation if a sufficiently large mob is convinced of the guilt of the person they are going to lynch. That is not how NAP is presently formulated, and for good reason.

You are like...

a little constantly yappy dog with stinky breath. :)

(eel touche')

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I am never without my deranged entourage

Welcome abroad, weebles. Grab an employee guide over on your right.

LOL

.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

Pathology

1.
"Arrest - seizing a person suspected or accused of a crime against his will and holding him captive."

The criminal mind will work to falsify the reasoning for anything other than covering up the criminal mind, so that ought to be understood right away.

Reasoning for 1 above:

If people live in Liberty and then people suspect that Liberty is being destroyed, there are effective ways people can proceed in defense of Liberty.

Example (explaining 1. Arrest)

As bodies pile up the survivors may find out the cause of death to be unnatural causes attributed to a individual who uses tools to end the lives of people. The pile of bodies stacked up are not the work of a wild animal such as a mad dog, or a wild bear, rather the pile of bodies have had their Liberty destroyed by someone, or some group of people working cooperatively.

The people in Liberty call those people who destroy Liberty a useful label and that useful label is CRIMINAL.

A pile of bodies, found to be murder victims murdered by someone, or some group of criminals working cooperatively as the criminals murdered the people who are piled up in a pile of murder victims.

People in Liberty can invent ways to defend Liberty.

If it were a mad dog, not someone, or if it were a pack of mad dogs, not a group of criminals murdering innocent victims, then the solution to the mad dog problem would still be the same solution to the crime problem.

Find the mad dogs that killed the people piled up in a pile and make sure that the mad dogs kill no more people.

Finding any dog, is not good enough, so it is important to find the mad dog, or mad dogs, doing the killing.

Killing all dogs, because some dogs are mad dogs killing people, does not work well for all dogs, and the same false solution does not work for solving the criminal problem either, even though the criminals themselves like this false solution.

Criminals will blame all people for the crimes perpetrated by the criminals. Let that be a lesson?

So...back to #1:

1.
"Arrest - seizing a person suspected or accused of a crime against his will and holding him captive."

People who are not guilty in Liberty have no reason to refuse to defend themselves against false accusations. "I am not the mad dog you are looking for, so we had better clear this up fast, so that the mad dogs can be arrested (effectively defended against), because failing to do so will result in more bodies on the existing pile."

From a Criminal mind the concept of "guilt before proof of innocence" involves an "arrest" that is defined as targeting the "suspect" (presumed to be guilty), then violently attacking the "suspect" no matter how peacefully the "suspect" reacts to the ORDER (to be obeyed without question) to OBEY.

When the Criminals take over the term "arrest" is the counterfeit version of "arrest" which is an unwarranted, unreasonable, "arrest."

When the Criminals have not taken over the people who effectively defend themselves realize that a mad dog, or a violent criminal, is not going to agree to stand trial for the crimes that everyone in command of common sense and reasonable intelligence, including the criminal, knows were accurately accountable to the criminals, including the people who create an arrest warrant based upon probable causes for an arrest warrant, the expectation of violence initiated by the AP guy, the criminal, is reasonable.

Aggression Principle guys = The Criminals.

Non Aggression Principle guys and gals = Defenders against The Criminals

That is not that difficult to understand for non criminals who are not inventing lies to cover up their crimes.

2.
"Jury trial - How can the democratic vote or consensus of random people justify the inflicting of loss of liberty on a person?"

The problem of Dictatorship (a single man or single group of men) ruling everyone was known, is known, and will be known, and competitive solutions were known, are known, and will be known, involving anything but Dictatorship.

Random selection of defenders in Liberty, whose job is finding the criminals, dealing with the criminals, was invented at least as far back as ancient Greece and they called that process sortition.

Sortition took the Dictatorship out of the process of defending Liberty. No longer were there men deciding who would be the ones doing the defending job, now there were in place a process of selecting by lot (random selection or sortition) from a pool of contenders for those jobs, and these people chosen this way were then doing those jobs. That sortition process took the Dictatorship out of defense of Liberty. That was called democracy. That was not Mob Rule. That was sortition, democracy, rule by the people, by all the people, for all the people, of all the people.

When The Criminals take over The Criminals ignore the facts, and The Criminals blame democracy for all sorts of crimes perpetrated by The Criminals.

Trial by Jury was adapted by people in defense of people at least as far back as ancient Rome. In cases where the Dictatorship was run by someone, or some group, that was nothing but Criminals, the people themselves found a way to nullify any Criminal Orders issued by Criminals running a Dictatorship. Tribunals of people were assembled by people for the purpose of reviewing any ORDERS issued by anyone, including Dictators, and if those ORDERS were not moral then the people chosen to sit as Jurists in Tribunals would put the down vote on those Criminal Orders that were not moral.

Then trial by jury was fused with the democratic process of sortition whereby no one in the whole country could ever be legally punished by anyone, including Dictators, including Criminals taking over the Government (so called by Criminals when they take over), as this governing process called trial by jury became a trial by the whole country, as representatives of the whole country, numbering 12, were chosen by sortition to sit on tribunals whereby 12 people must unanimously agree that a criminal is in fact a criminal, or a mad dog is in fact a mad dog, and then those 12 must also agree on the punishment, so the whole country of people, randomly represented by 12 people, decide the facts, the law, and the punishment (if any) is warranted in any case where anyone is punished in any lawful way at all.

2.
"Jury trial - How can the democratic vote or consensus of random people justify the inflicting of loss of liberty on a person?"

When The Criminals take over The Criminals bastardize words so as to divide and conquer the targeted victims.

The trial by jury process protects the criminals from their choices to be criminals, so The Criminals, as a rule, will ignore those trial by jury remedies offered by randomly selected people who work to defend everyone including the criminals who are found to be criminals during trials run by people running trials for the purpose of defending everyone including the criminals.

The Criminals will refuse to even acknowlege the fact that they are The Criminals of course.

3.
"Would NAP conforming security agencies be permitted to arrest and hold suspects for trial?"

Those who make false accusations are those who are perpetrating crimes. Those who are targets of false accusations, in Liberty, where trial by jury works as it is designed to work, are afforded remedies in their defense against false accusations.

Trial by jury defends those who make false accusations too, so that the one making false accusations is given the opportunity, afforded the choice, to pay any damages caused by the criminal upon the victim, so as to help the criminal understand how crime does not pay when defenders of Liberty defend Liberty without the Criminal Aggression Principle driving them to make up lies about their criminal minds.

Joe

Of course there will be trials.

And you know the weakness of your argument already because you deliberately used the phrase 'arbitrary number' as opposed to unanimous.

Pi is an 'arbitrary number'. But it's not just an arbitrary number. It means something.

100% is an 'arbitrary number'. But it's not just an arbitrary number. It means something.

For science to get done, people have to be involved. The scientific method is the best way to do so.

For justice to be done people have to be involved. Courts are the best way to do so.

There is no super computer or supernatural being to do the work. It's up to us.

We have historically picked a large number of people, like 12, for crimes with serious sanction. To minimize the likelihood of injustice being done.

But you can't have justice without a mechanism to implement justice.

The NAP merely precludes injustice ab initio.

Both socialized law and free law will be carried out by imperfect humans. That is not the difference.

The real difference between free law and socialized law:

Free courts and free law do not depend on theft and murder to exist at all.

Socialized law depends on theft and murder to exist.

This has other ramifications.

Since free law is capitalistic the incentive is to reduce injustice, because that is what people want, and since that is what people want, that is what people will pay for.

Since socialized law is not capitalistic, the incentive is to create more injustice. As a monopoly the more injustice they create, the more rent they can collect. If they reduce injustice they would reduce 'profit'.

Socialized law will and must always provide an inferior product.

This is the general case about socialized markets/monopolies. No market is excluded from this.

All socialized services are monopolies and to maximize rent, monopolies must always provide inferior products and cause problems to be solved, which as a monopoly, they are the only ones allowed to do so.

With capitalism this same impulse still sometimes exists, but cannot be realized. If you try to create a monopoly without government enforcement you make losses until you give up, or go out of business.

The only reason the US with socialistic law maintains any level of order is because they claim a huge share of resources. Once this ends, as it must, it will be revealed as just like every other police force when the money runs out. Corrupt to the core. In places like Mexico the police don't have all the indirect ways to steal money in the US, so they have to do it directly, with bribes.

The market does not always

The market does not always value justice. Why do you think it would? The market would only value justice if the majority valued justice, otherwise it values cost and efficiency.

Consider, our legal system provides subsidies for legal representation and is based on the principle that "its better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted". Now, does that sound like something the market would produce?

At some point, you need to decide whether you are a lover of the principles of liberty or whether you are some market fundamentalist that puts capitalism above justice for all.

Ventura 2012

Why do you think people don't value justice?

Yes of course, we live in a collectivist state. Power is there to be gained so if you are able to use government power to seize resources you are incented to do so. Because the power exists people are led to tolerate injustice towards others.

But in a free society there is no power to game. Everyone rejects injustice toward themselves, and without any coercive power to game they will reject any injustice as a threat to themselves, which it is.

I do think most people are good outside of capitals (vast majority) and most people are not inside capitals. (small minority) So yes, I am pretty sure the market for justice is stronger than the market for injustice.

At some point you need to decide whether you value the principals of liberty or are just another statist willing to condone theft and murder because you don't understand economics.

Economics supports liberty. If you don't understand economics you will be vulnerable to socialistic arguments in favor of statism/collectivism, as you seem to be. Might want to work on that?

I don't have a problem with minarchists if they understand their own case. But minarchists are supporting socialism in some few areas.

You want other people to pay for services you want.

That's not a principled liberty position.

It's also not a knowledgeable economic position. Socialized monopolies are always less efficient and provide lower quality and more costly products and services.

You really think people have

You really think people have noting better to do than pay for criminals? Because thas how most people view the criminal justice system. People don't foresee themselves as participants in the systen.

You then go on to spout the usual irrelevancies about how Minarchists are "statists" and "unprincipled" yawn. The minarchist principle is terribly obvious and you discredit yourself by building strawman and pretending-I hope- to not understand it.

Minarchists understand the desireability of government in a limited form, that is not socialism. Especially when you consider that they view stable government as a prerequisite for markets. Minarchists view anarchists to be pro feudalism and pro tribalism, not pro market. Makes sense based on the history of humanity.

Of course a government court system will be less efficient, but it can still be a more just system than one skewed overwhelmingly by the market power of the rich and/or the tyranNY of the majority.

Ventura 2012

lol right.

but it can still be a more just system than one skewed overwhelmingly by the market power of the rich and/or the tyranNY of the majority

Wow.

This is what we have today. This is all we have today.

And they only have it because rubes like you think government power can, has, or ever will work for anyone else than it always has.

Sorry, no. Socialism is socialism.

And you think you're pro market? Socialism is pro market now. I see.

You are a hot mess.

You are not equipped for this discussion. You don't even know what you are arguing for.

What I'm NOT arguing for is

What I'm NOT arguing for is today's system, which is not minarchist in the least. Nice strawman though.

Ventura 2012

Fair enough. As a practical

Fair enough.

As a practical matter I maintain that we could live with the system if the Constitution was legal.

Unfortunately also as a practical matter it never has been legal and I don't see how it could be made legal.

Give men armies, two centuries, the power to tax and a printing press.. and a piece of paper saying please don't take guns from people or deny them due process or spy on them.

I think we know how this ends? Perhaps we can agree on that.

But seriously if minarchy ever worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. Maybe you think lets try one more time.. But I'm pretty sure it will end the same way.

wow, Night and day demeanor from your hate-post earlier

Any system requires vigilance to maintain freedom, whether anarchy or minarchy. Most revolutionaries understood the need for maintained revolutionary fervor lest old customs return, from Jefferson to evil ones like Robespierre, Napoleon, Lenin, and modern day Neocons.

Ventura 2012

Scroll up, I just followed your lead partner

You open with clubs I follow with clubs.

Anyway you are right and wrong.

The price you pay for giving other men power over you is eternal vigilance. IE eternal fear.

But you didn't need to do it in the first place.

God may be eternal, but eternal anything with humans involved must always fail.

People die and their children are educated in state schools to lick the boots of the state. Vigilance is gone in one generation because you thought that making your fellow taxpayers pay for your childrens' 'free' government schooling was a swell idea.

The seed of evil is in us. People want free stuff. If the power to steal from some and give to others exists people will pretend it's not theft, just as you do.

The state has an incentive for you to justify their evil, so it cuts you in.

But simple math says you must always be more victim than victimizer.

There's a whole lot of money that seems to stop in DC that doesn't get to the supposed people who think they are victimizing the taxpayer when they vote for some benefit or protection.

They are victimizing themselves.

It all starts with you being willing to go along with evil because you think you will personally benefit from the evil.

In your case you may want just a little evil, a little theft, so that you can make your fellow man pay for the armies and tanks you want. Maybe some police. Ok I get that, limited evil is better than unlimited evil.

But it didn't stop there did it? That scrap of paper that said "ok, just a little taxation and all we want is some armies and police, alright?" didn't stop them from doing every evil they wanted, did it?

There's a name for the being that can only accomplish evil by tempting men isn't there?

What clubs? you're too

What clubs? you're too sensitive.

Of course minarchists would choose anarchy if we thought it was plausible, but we dont.

Ventura 2012

Surely

But even high levels of vigilance, or infinite, couldn't avoid bedlam if NAP were only adhered to by good people while the bad discarded it. To provision justice against the bad, the good would need to violate NAP. Likewise in battle; the side that violated NAP in tactics would always win if the good side adhered to NAP.

Minarchism depends on high vigilance, and lasts a short while before vigilance or interest lapses. Anarchism depends on a fundamentally different human nature, and so doesn't last twelve seconds.

This is a very weak and impulsive response

The number of twelve jurors is arbitrary, so you claim that it isn't the number but the unanimity of their decision.

Leaving aside for the moment that you still have to justify arrest and captivity and trial long before their is such a unanimous consensus, you have not given us any basis for why unanimous consent is a valid basis for a group to deny the rights of an individual.

If unanimity has the property of making valid the seizure and imprisonment of a person, then the unanimity of three people is just as unanimous as twelve.

Unanimity does not rescue you from explaining how consensus, a word I used throughout the post, makes it valid to deny the liberty of another person.

Assuming it does so, which you seem to believe, then you grant the validity of the principle of consensus of a group as legitimate for the denial of liberty to individuals.

After all, the accused is a minority of one, and if it is valid for the twelve to impose their will on him, as lone dissenter, you have just granted validity to majority consensus as a legit basis for committing harm or denying liberty to an individual.

For justice to be done people have to be involved. Courts are the best way to do so.

This is telling.

You seem to be admitting that for justice to exist, people have to in fact arrest others on suspicion or accusation, thus violating NAP; they must subject them to trial and verdict by group consensus, and they have to sentence punishment.

I agree with you, but all of these violate NAP, and all represent the principle of consensus as valid for denying individuals liberty or for punishing them.

Once you've granted that principle as valid, you are stuck with it.

"Injustice" is not a principle. It is the lack thereof.

"For justice to be done people have to be involved. Courts are the best way to do so."

This is telling.

You seem to be admitting that for justice to exist, people have to in fact arrest others on suspicion or accusation, thus violating NAP; they must subject them to trial and verdict by group consensus, and they have to sentence punishment.

I agree with you, but all of these violate NAP, and all represent the principle of consensus as valid for denying individuals liberty or for punishing them.

Once you've granted that principle as valid, you are stuck with it.

It seems you [both] are confusing justice with injustice, or at least focusing on the tiny sliver of "justice" that is actually the correction of injustice. Even that style of justice is but a sliver of a sliver, an attempted return to principle.

No one needs to be arrested or subject to trial for justice to be done. Justice exists in the absence of its violation.

Yesterday for example, I awoke, at some food, got together with friends, laughed at their jokes, they laughed at mine, I ate more food and went to bed. I harmed no one yesterday, and no one harmed me. I experienced mutual benefit with all I encountered. Justice was served all day. I served justice as justice served me. Justice "existed" with no arrest or trial.

I agree!

If no injustice is done, there is no injustice.

That's very profound, John!

Also, if no purple crocodiles speak Latin, then no purple crodociles speak latin.

And if no one breathes, no one breathes.

Now, back to the actual topic.

I have no clue...

how you could get...

If no injustice is done, there is no injustice.

...from what I posted. I mean, what's your point? Sure, duh!

If my comment wasn't simple enough for you to comprehend, I'll summarize for you...

If no injustice is done, there is no injustice justice.

YOU had previously implied that no justice exists until injustice has been corrected. I came in to contend that justice also exists before [and without] any advent of injustice.

Please quote where I said this

Or implied it.

Not only is your italics

not a quote, since my heading was just 'I agree,' but also doesn't show what you claim I implied. I also followed with what I agreed with, namely, if there is 'no injustice, there is no injustice.' This is identical logically with where there is no injustice, there is justice.

This is how our reasoning sounds:

John Robb says that its sunny wherever there are no clouds.

Feng agrees with John Robb, but also says 'who cares?'

Jon Robb accuses Feng of claiming that no sunlight exists unless clouds are removed.

Feng looks perplexed, and says wtf? where did I say that.

JohnRobb responds 'above, where you agreed,' without specifying.

tracking

I honestly right now think you are being diversionary, playing dumb. Josf might call it deceitful. Perhaps confused, but you are certainly not stupid.

I didn't direct you to this comment, I directed you to this one.

The entire first half of that is in italics. That which is in italics is quoted from your comment directly above it, indicating the specific text to which I was replying. At the core of that italicized text is "I agree with you". You were indicating there that you initially agreed with Faithkills [but then added the stuff about how the system of implementing justice violates NAP].

I am unconcerned with your notion that our "justice system" violates NAP. My contention with you precludes that. My contention was/is with your notion of the "existence" of justice. Your hardcore objectivism continually traps you. Your concept of justice is no different from your concept of morality in that way. You continually present these concepts as if they are able to manifest without anyone around to engage in that which is just or moral. Best of luck in finding your True North!


http://youtu.be/KwPtk_YCvh0