-5 votes

Does it violate NAP? II

So you've got your bug out bag at your side, swallowed your gold and are fleeing political oppression. Your family is already escaped and waiting for you in a free zone somewhere, depending on you to arrive with your gold to pay for the safe harbor.

You get within one mile of the harbor from which you intend to depart, and are recognized by some ne'er do wells who are hanging around outside the local government agricultural management office waiting for their daily scraps.

They are going to go get the reward money by reporting you, and a pat on the head from the local commissar.

Does it violate the NAP for you to tie them up or knock them out and flee?

Does it violate the NAP for them to report you?

Comment viewing options

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

Yes, Cyriously

Your feigned surprise notwithstanding.

Don't be sneaking Cyril. The question was not about escaping from oppression, it was about using force against people who are not using force against you. You know, the textbook definition of aggression.

Try to answer the question if you can, if not, don't.

Cyril's picture

When you try to flee from your oppressor

When you try to flee from your oppressor (usually, by mere survival instinct) and some put themselves in your way to purposely block you, hence on the side of your oppressor, they are de facto violating the NAP their turn.

If a mob starts storming your property and pillaging, and while you try to stop them, I jump in the gang and try to disable you so they can continue their "business", I am violating the NAP, too.

Why are you pretending not to understanding what the NAP is about?

What is so cool with trying to justify aggression (for whatever social agenda) by any and all means, as you do, page after page on these forums?

I pointed it out before:

I don't get it.

Would you have picked the wrong site?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Its unsportsmanlike

to say who should and shouldn't be on the Daily P. That's the Boss's decision, and I have been here 8 days less than you. Got plenty of friends here, so think before you speak so harshly.

You have obviously changed my hypothetical, as people tend to do when they can't respond to the actual hypothetical. No one "blocks" anyone in my scenario. They just share information. Stop changing the scenario, it makes you look bad and it shows you can't deal with the actual scenario.

What happens then? I have to point out you're not playing fair, cheating by changing my hypothetical, then you get mad and storm off. Just play by the rules, or don't play. More fun for all.

Cyril's picture

You're amazing, aren't you?

You're amazing, aren't you?

"They just share information".

Right!

Knowing full well they can do harm, serving the oppressor of someone who did nothing to them FIRST (unlike the oppressor they band with).

Maybe you were playing with hypocrisy just for the sake of bringing down my point, maybe you were not.

Somehow, I wish you were - that it wasn't sincere a come back, just a trick.

Go figure.

You know, Stalin, too, only mostly shared information with a pen and bits of paper once at the top of the state, not even having to use a gun by himself.

Just a pen. To write orders.

Of "processing".

That was also "just sharing information", right?

Or just, much lower on the ladder: the gestapo's snitches, too, "only were sharing information".

So, the oppressed have to respect such diligent people, even (especially) when those are directly involved in working against the oppressed's safety, for their oppressor.

Ah, now I see. Nothing wrong with that, according to you. The NAP still applies (well, especially for the oppressor's benefit, but, nevermind) and you can't defend yourself against those.

Are you always cherry picking on the literal meaning of words in the simplest, most obvious situations?

Or, would that be fine for you, too :

Will you praise me (or stay neutral) when they come for you and I give them a helping hand by just "sharing information"?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

As the person who constructed

As the person who constructed the hypothetical, I can say what will and won't happen. But for the people in the hypothetical, informing on a criminal/fugitive in exchange for some scraps, in a situation of starvation, is just normal behavior. The person doesn't know you're innocent... you're an accused criminal!

And when you hog tie them or knock them out, you don't know ahead of time if they're actually going to report you, it's just a suspicion.

So when you say it's right to disable them, you're admitting that it's okay to commit aggression against someone who hasn't attacked you or committed fraud. I agree! But NAP would not endorse this behavior.

You have to come around and admit that NAP is a flawed principle, even for libertarians.

I'm not bad because I'm helping you clarify your principles and come to a more sound and realistic point of view.

Cyril's picture

Moot point?

Sorry, but that doesn't hold much water for me, here.

Anyone is usually able to recognize the law perverted, and when they're actively contributing to oppress dissidents or minorities by blind abiding to it.

You are familiar with Thoreau's writings, aren't you? It's also related to one of his topics, re: the treatment and views about Civil Disobedience.

Anyway.

I'm no delusional, I know there are many shades of gray in many things, but the darkest are recognizable by all with a simple question:

what if it was me, at the place of that guy?

Either that, or you should have made much, much clearer in your post that those hypothetical helpers have absolutely no clue of what they are doing, and in good faith.

But since even that is much improbable this makes your entire point moot, considering how you made up the rest of that scenario.

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Good question: if it was you, in the place of that guy

So you're the impoverished, hungry father of 2, after a revolution you don't remotely understand. The government has take over food distribution, and claims there are all kinds of criminals and fugitives on the loose, you're scared to hell and your family is hungry. The fields are fallow, there is some food in the depot but you get small rations. You are rewarded if you report criminals/fugitives. You see one, he looks well-fed, wealthy, and is trying to hide his identity. Do you report him?

Cyril's picture

No I don't. Thats the big difference between the left (you?) & I

No, I don't.

That's the big difference between the left (you?) and I :

I don't give a f*** at what the government is saying on the causes of my condition and of others'.

I have a brain and I can figure this out by myself.

If I didn't prepare in time before SHTF, I can only blame myself.

I vomit, I puke, being envious of other's lot, when those have had no business whatsoever with myself, my case, and are simply doing what they think is in their best interests - they may be declared traitors, they may be true thieves, thet may be whatever - I will care only when I get clues that they are after my life or property, or working for those who are (cf. your post).

I can have compassion for those who are dear to me, because related or close for a long time.

I may have a vague, mild compassion for complete strangers, neutral to me.

And as far as the government-declared criminals of your example (yet another one?!) are concerned:

I may put myself on watching out after them, but I will decide them friends or foes only after they have involved themselves with my case directly - e.g., trying to rob me, or to denounce me to the government, hurt my family, or etc.

I can't care less for how they make it thru for themselves without impacting me observably.

But you of course, above society, can read minds and see the grand chess board from above and decide how all the interests are interconnected invisibly, and what's best for all - maybe?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

That's all well and good

But in any case, the person who reveals they saw you doesn't commit aggression. If you attack them you violate NAP. That's the only point I wished to carry, and have done so I think.

Cyril's picture

Again, moot point, much?

Again, moot point, much?

Unless they are idiots, people who have to flee oppression to save themselves won't go after their oppressors or the minions/accomplices thereof, if they can...

... well, just flee from them, without being intercepted.

They may return later for either revenge or demand justice, but then that's another question altogether.

So, yes, maybe I misinterpreted your post in the sense I read it that they would cross the path of the people helping the oppressor.

If they don't have to encounter (by luck) any of their oppressor accomplices to make it to their freedom to recover, and they're not idiots either in the first place risking to ruin their chances of escape, what's with all this talk/fuss trying to show how the NAP could, supposedly, justifiably be violated somehow?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Moot point?

Point is that if its right to violate NAP, the NAP is not a sound principle. NAP says it's never right. If NAP is wrong, it's a poor basis for ideology, like anarchism. I'm trying to help people clarify their thinking so they aren't caught in false beliefs.

Cyril's picture

I don't care about how the NAP relates as a basis for anarchy

I don't care about how the NAP relates as a basis for anarchy, mind you - didn't you read me on that?

All I know is it's a sound, natural, intuitive principle, and while I can make the case for it in at least 3 different ways, you wrote:

"... if the NAP is wrong, etc"

and you still haven't shown where and how (it *would* be only remotely "wrong") - despite your pages after pages of questioning it for weeks (months?) and btw, in ways that observably make sense only to you on here, have you noticed?

Not that I care much (or at all, actually) about what the majority thinks, but could you please FINALLY! make a no-nonsense case against the NAP and maybe find someone else to support that case as much as you do, too?!

Thank you.

At this pace, we'll still be on the same with you around speaking in this I-dunno-what-logic, in ten years from now, you know.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

In my scenario, it's right

to commit aggression. NAP says aggression is always wrong. Therefore, NAP is not a sound principle. Why so mad? Why do you keep protesting you don't care about the topic, and about a side topic you asked about, namely, why NAP is pertinent to anarchism.

Goodnight Cyril.

Cyril's picture

"Time !" for Justice's sake !

LOL. I'm not mad, I'm tired.

The only things I take personally come from my wife, my mom, or my boss - not from here, just FYI.

But I just realize you're giving a response that ignores the very same thing that a former one (response, from you) was already ignoring months ago, if I recollect well:

well, yes, aggression is wrong!

That's what it's all about!

So, I have to return the same again?!

Really, you gonna exhaust me.

Aggression is wrong because :

Aggressor = he/she who attacks FIRST.

Time!

We live in space AND time!

The latter ALSO makes a difference!

Otherwise, we wouldn't try to read/learn from History, as I strive to do.

I can only hope you're not among those who have decided to ignore History, are you?

Anyway.

The prey is that thing to be attacked first - the predator is the other end.

Whoever claims there's a good reason to allow human aggressors/attackers/predators for "okay" reasons/oversight once in a while, is either selling b.s. or is dangerously reckless, IMO.

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

If aggression was wrong

then it would be wrong for dude to tie up other dude. Not wrong, ergo, aggression not always wrong as such. Other principles needed to figure out what's right in wrong. That's why we have such complex law courts, they've been figuring out this stuff for centuries. Anarchists have not been involved.

Cyril's picture

Sorry. Nonsense, to me.

Sorry. Nonsense, to me.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

who cares, this is stupid, go

who cares, this is stupid, go enjoy the summer.

If someone is accepting money

If someone is accepting money for performing an act that leads to your death, what is he? In my book, he is a hired killer, or at least an accessory to hired killers.

This scenario lays out a gross violation. As all governments, the society is already raping your right to liberty, and now, one of the henchmen to this government is directly threatening your right to life.

Your rights are inalienable. What does this mean? It means you are allowed to defend your rights from those who would violate them with deadly force if needs be.

You would be perfectly and legally justified to kill them, let alone hog-tie them to stop them from causing your death. Everyone who is engaged in the violation of your natural human rights is a criminal. While they are in the act, pretty much any actions you take against your aggressor to stop them from violating your natural rights are defensive and therefore justified.

He's not allowed

to share information? Has no freedom of speech?

They're not henchmen of the government, that's a false interpolation to the scenario. Like I said, they're just loafers looking to curry favor with the powerful. They might be starving, after all it's under communism.

He never touches you, never steals from you; just reveals your identity.

You are reduced to claiming speech is a crime to avoid acknowledging its okay to violate NAP to shut the bum up.

If two men are working as a

If two men are working as a sniper team, murdering humans at random, is the spotter less guilty than the shooter? He's only sharing information right? Isn't that freedom of speech? Or is he providing the shooter with indispensable information which directly leads to the murder of people? What if the spotter was hired right before the shooting began because he needed the money? What if he's actually just a loafer doing a job? In legal terms, we call this an accomplice, and he is guilty of murder every ounce as much as the shooter.

A loafer who is loyal to the communist system which is a system built upon depriving you of your natural rights is a criminal. He is a loyalist to a criminal organization which is actively trying to harm your rights. When that loafer provides support to said communist government in order to kill you, no matter what his motivations, he is guilty by association of your murder. He has provided direct indispensable information to your killer, much as a spotter does to a sniper.

If you live in a communist tyranny, everyone who is loyal to that government is a criminal actively engaged in aggressing against your rights. You are well justified to overthrow/escape from that aggression by any means necessary. Free people living under tyrannical criminal gangs are justified to engage in open revolution against their oppressors, and should consider all who provide direct support to that government's military to be enemy combatants.

Good challenge!

I suppose it depends on who the sniper team is and who it's targetting.

If it belongs to a "security agency" and hitting people it has previously "convicted" of "crimes" in anarchy, I suppose it's okay to kill.

If not, then both parties are working to kill people on a contract, hired by someone claiming they're bad people? sounds reasonable under anarchism, maybe they're a "security agency" and they believe they've been hired by an honest person.

But in my scenario, the informer is just reporting on a "fugitive" or a "criminal" from justice. The government probably accused him of all kinds of heinious deeds, and the informer hardly is in a position to know whether he's guilty, or exactly what consequences he will suffer.

Are you suggesting that someone who reports on a suspect, in response to an "arbitration agency" wanted poster, should be hogtied and knocked out because he's potentially reporting on an innocent?

More and more problems on anarchy!

If the shooter is killing

If the shooter is killing unjustly, than the spotter is also unjust. In no case is one a criminal but the other is not. They are either both justified, or both guilty.

The benefit of the NAP is it clearly and in no uncertain terms defines what a crime is. So if a communist government calls you a criminal but you haven't violated anyone's rights, you are not a criminal. Your liberties are under attack. Everyone who attempts to assist said government in destroying your life, liberty or property is an aggressor. You can defend yourself by any means necessary.

If an arbitration company calls you a criminal and lays out a settled and uncontested verdict in accordance to the NAP (the governing principal of our volunteerist society) You ARE a criminal and your appropriate rights have been revoked. For example, if your right to life has been revoked because you committed murder and failed to (or were not granted the ability to because of the heinous nature of your crimes) remunerate the victims of your crime, you life is forfeit, and anyone who wishes too can kill you without committing a crime. The victim could even hire a sniper team to kill you, and neither the employer or employee would be guilty of anything other than carrying out justice.

Once again, anarchy is an insulting misnomer. Clearly the NAP is the governing principal from which the law comes. There IS law. It is not a lawless society, and force IS brought against criminals who have violated rights. The ONLY difference is that the society is voluntary, not mandatory. Unless it is your opinion that law can only exist when people have their private property removed from them by force by men with guns, than there is really no justification for slandering voluntarism by calling it lawless.

Everyone follows law, even if its the law of the jungle, so really, the term "anarchist" doesn't even describe anything that appears in reality, let alone people who just want to live without coercion.

Yeah but the

sniper is working for the arb agency who decided guilt. Are you saying the arb agency can't hire bounty hunters and back up snipers for when situations spiral out and hostages get involved?

Anyway, the example of someone acting as a spotter for a sniper is different in kind from someone revealing the identity of a person.

The person who spots for a sniper is acting and participating in what may be a crime.

The person revealing an identity is sharing information about someone accused of a crime.

Are you suggesting that someone who provides information to an arb agency about an accused suspect should be attacked by the accused party?

You keep speaking in these absolutes about guilt and innocence, when these things are in the eye of the beholder; all the more so on anarchy, where there is no jurisdiction or final arbiter, anyone as a private person or agency can accuse or exonerate on their own judgment.

Much less does a man in the street know who's guilty. You're talking about guilt and innocence in an ontic sense (the objective reality), where in society, guilt and innocence is always based on some epistemic source (how we know what we think is real).

In a society with a government, we all accept the jurisdiction of the public authority for better or worse, and agree to abide by it.

In anarchism, there is no public authority, and every one can decide for himself about guilt and innocence, and form a gang to impose its verdict. Cases which aren't totally clear can either never be decided on anarchism, or else will result in fighting and a never ending attempt by one side to get retribution, and the other side to protect the accused.

There is no closure.

Claims that every dispute will be settled for economic reasons just assumes no one will ever take payment to fight. People take payment to fight even now in a society with stable legal order. They fight in conflicts between states. Military types and mercenaries will be able to fight all the time on private hire under anarchy.

It depends on what form

It depends on what form arbitration would take. My guess is that the arbitration wouldn't be involved in carrying out sentences. Their job would basically be to decide if a crime had been committed, and if so, revoke the proper right from the condemned, sometimes offering a remuneration sentence with a date for remuneration to be completed.

For example; a murder is convicted after each client's arbitration company holds a trial and arrives at a verdict. The murderer may have a set amount of time to make sufficient remuneration to the victims, or if they refuse this, perhaps his right to life is simply revoked in the public record. Now he is fair game for anyone to kill. Perhaps the arbitration company recommends a number of hit-men who can be hired to carry out the sentence, or perhaps the victim's family provides to take matters into their own hands. Because the murder has had his right to life officially revoked, it is considered a criminal act to help him in any way, and he no longer is allowed self defense. He cannot be sold weapons or given support. He is a dead man walking at the mercy of those who whose loved one he murdered.

Its important to note in the case of the informant, he isn't providing information on a person who is guilty of a crime. He is providing information on an innocent person who is having force initiated against him without just cause. He is an accomplice to murder, not an informant against a criminal. What he "believes" is irrelevant. the NAP is very clear on what is crime and what is not, even if the loafer providing direct assistance to murderers is not. Being ignorant of the law does not excuse criminal activity.

Concerning those who inform in a volunteerist society, its important to note that there are no "arrests" until after a guilty verdict is rendered. So what would they be informing about? A trial would be held whether a person attended it or not. If Bob is accused of murder, he is informed that a trial is happening to decide his guilt, and that it is in his best interests to attend.

Guilt and innocence are not in the eye of the beholder, because you would be innocent until it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty; much as its supposed to be today. Difference is an arbitration company could not afford incompetence like a government can. The arbitration company pays directly for its failures, as opposed to the government unloading its fines onto the tax cows.

Again we've already established that the final arbiter is the customer who can make an incompetent arbitration company vanish by taking his business elsewhere. We can't get anywhere in a debate if you don't include the points I've already made, or at least refute them.

An arbitration company would post its verdict transparently on the internet, open to scrutiny and appeal. If it remains standing after cross examination from whomever wants to find fault, the verdict goes into public record, the guilty party is convicted and has his appropriate rights revoked until his sentence is carried out (whatever that might be, generally remuneration.)

This system seems to have far more checks and balances than leaving it up to corrupt criminals such as Eric Holder, wouldn't you agree? I'd rather have a company's fear of financial ruin keep it in check than a lying political system that already engages in rampant crime and cronyism.

Its not that I think violence between defense companies would be impossible, just extraordinarily rare as a defense contractor's livelihood depends on it being viewed as responsible and safe for the public. A loose cannon company who initiates aggression, or fails to abide by the final verdict of arbitration would be bankrupt and have its finances frozen by banks and suppliers who would immediately refuse to do business with the irresponsible company rather than risk sharing in the public outcry and loosing their own businesses by supporting a dangerous cabal of armed lunatics.

Once a company is discredited publicly by angry customers for its actions, its employees would flee to competitors, its investors would sell shares, its customers would abandon it, and it would be doomed. This actually IS a safeguard that is reasonable.

In the government system, we are actually expecting the criminal politicians to police themselves, and remain uncorrupted because.... I don't even know why people expect this. They don't, they never have, they never will. The ONLY form of punishment they ever receive is where one group of the gang "fines" the offender by simply fleecing the tax-payers of their money in the shape of ridiculous fines that transfer your money from one criminal agency to the next. There is utterly no justice, no checks and balances. To even suggest that a "vote" is a check on corruption is to ignore your senses. Look around. This is the result of a constitutional republic. I would argue it is the inevitable result. Our Republic was corrupted and ruined before Jefferson was even in his grave. If Jefferson couldn't even keep it free of corruption, how do we expect today's public to do it?

How can free market competition not be preferable to this?

I'll try to keep it brief

since we're not writing a book together.

1. If arb agency not determining sentence, who does? They decide the guilt, who decides the sentence? Private prisons too? Hit squads? From what I've read of anarchists, the arbitrator/court is the most likely sentencing candidate over the security agencies.

2. You said if one arb agency revokes the suspects right to life, no one can help him. LOL. How does that follow? What if a third arb agency held its own trial and said he's innocent?

3. The informant in all cases is providing info on a suspect/accused. Are you saying that when someone is accused, people can't be witnesses, can't inform security agencies of sightings, whereabouts? That's friggin insane. It violates NAP now to reporting sighting of a criminal at large?

4. An arb company can't afford to suck? Why do so many business suck compared to the top tier businesses? The difference is that in anarchism, a controversial verdict can be overturned endless times and two agencies can never come to agreement. With a government, a decision is binding and there's no unlimited appeal, and no double jeopardy. There's closure and public jurisdiction.

5. Two competent arbitration agencies can disagree. Not every case is clear cut. There are also other agencies that will be corrupt. This is more market worship, where you guys think market agents are infallible. This is entirely separate from the fact that in a world without jurisdiction, individuals will just pay for protection and not submit to outside arbitration or trial. No one is going to trust their personal fate in the custody of someone's agency.

Eric Holder is a red herring. I'd prefer the current justice system in my community that I deal with, with all its flaws, to anarchy where I have to hire a body guard firm, an insurance firm, an arbitration firm, and a mercenary army to defend me. I doubt I'd have any money left over for food.

1. If I had to guess, Id say

1. If I had to guess, Id say you wouldn't really have sentences, you'd loose rights. So an Arbitration company might say "Your right to private property ceases to exist in T minus 3 days unless you pay $10,000 to the victim of your crime and cover all arbitration costs.

Once the person who fails to make remuneration to the victim, his property rights are revoked and his bank account is frozen and assets taken, he can no longer store or keep wealth that cannot be stolen. He only regains his right to property when his victim has been remunerated.

This could involve a defense contractor deployed to simply take by force the $10,000 worth of property from the criminal (who would take the job as they are not violating rights to carry out the contract).

2. I expect that the public would demand uniform verdicts. People still want legal structure in their lives, even without a state, so there would probably be a center of arbitration where verdicts are delivered and disputed until a consensus is reached. A sort of public database of legal verdicts and known criminals. I highly doubt the public would stand for conflicting verdicts on any case. If two arbitration companies utterly refused to agree, a 3rd party would solve the issue. This 3rd party tie-breaker would be in both companies contract from the beginning, so refusing to abide by its ruling would be company suicide for either company.

3. If you're reporting on an accused in a NAP society, its fine, you aren't endangering that person's life because they will not be killed/arrested until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If found innocent, the informant did no harm as the person was never caged before his trial. If they are found guilty than they actually ARE criminals as opposed to the communist system where innocent people are executed for victimless crime. If you really ARE guilty of a crime that warrants the death penalty, than obviously its not self defense to kill an informant as you no longer have a right to life, and therefore cannot legally defend yourself.

It never violates the NAP to report seeing a criminal. It violates the NAP to report seeing an innocent person to a criminal agency who wants to kill said person unjustly. Its funny that you're still making a distinction between a criminal gang and a communist government whose laws actually are crimes. There is no difference other than the foolish beliefs of the loafers in the bread line. Those loafers misinformation and stupidity is not an excuse that lets them serve as accomplices to a crime. Killing an innocent person is a crime. Providing direct assistance to that murder makes you an accomplice to a crime.

Where is the disconnect? Just putting the word "law" in front of an obvious crime does not change the fact that is was a crime. "Law" in a communist tyranny isn't law. Its crime which idiots who don't know any better sanction with their "belief." They are wrong. The NAP allows us to see things for what they actually are, rather than deluding ourselves with misleading language.

4. Do you think that people, in absence of a domineering gang to level force against us, would suddenly not demand legal structure that didn't have problems like unending appeals that never resolve anything? Do you think that humans are too dumb to come up with solutions to this when huge piles of money are thrown at them for success? Wouldn't it be logical that the smartest of us would pioneer ways to make this work without violating rights in such a society?

Yes lots of businesses suck, but they also go under, and successful companies who fulfill the desire of the public succeed and make piles and piles of money. Seeing these successes encourages other companies to try similar methods, and improve on them. Our biggest hindrance in the market is government.

5. Two competent arbitration agencies can disagree, an agreed upon third party agency would resolve it as contracted early on by shareholders and the public demand for swift, final verdicts. Paying customers would not tolerate floating, contradictory verdicts. It would be overwhelmingly in each companies best interests to agree to dispute resolution by 3rd parties in the event that the client's arbitrators could not settle on a just ruling.

There may be individuals who refuse to abide by the arbitration verdict handed down, but they would be criminals and that's what defense contractors are for.

While you may prefer your current justice system where you live, mine is an atrocious and corrupt pile of wicked bureaucrats and there is no justice here. I would vastly prefer the ability to cancel my account with them and move to a more reputable competitor. In fact, if there was any competition at all, my local justice system would not exist, they'd have gone out of business a long time ago. Eric Holder wasn't the best example to use, apologies. I should have said the Supreme Court (the one that just ruled that Obama Care was constitutional). They would be the final arbiter you'd face if you tried to bring justice against the government and your case was appealed. I think we can both agree you won't be getting any justice there.

We could write a book though. :)

Hopefully it goes without saying, but I'm not down voting you. I enjoy the debate.

Uncle! uncle!

I can't write anymore u win

Nope! [to the first question]

I don't have a clue! [to the second question. As I've said before, I remain unconcerned with determining whether or not others are in violation of their principles. To me a threat is simply a threat.]

So attacking peaceful

people for speaking is in accord with NAP?

That's quite an amazing claim.

What part of pointing out your identity violates NAP?

You guys are a riot, the lengths you'll go to hang onto NAP.

Yes, I'm quite the amazing proclaimer, but you wouldn't know.

1) You bring up the consideration of "speaking" as if it's already at issue, but I don't see the term "speaking" anywhere on this page but as you bring it up freshly in your new comment.

2) Again I'll repeat, I am unconcerned with whether or not "speaking" or any other action another may take, might violate their principles.

3) I don't have a clue to what you might be referring by "That's quite an amazing claim." In reality the claim is yours.

4) I can't think of a situation in which my pointing out my identity could possibly violate my adherence to NAP, other than perhaps my screaming my own name aggressively at someone while I'm beating his face in and egotistically wanting him to know just before he dies, who is sending him to hell. For another to point out my identity, like I've said, I remain unconcerned with NAP, it is not my action, it is either a threat or it isn't and I'll deal with it as such in self defense if I determine I have to.

"Pointing out my identity", this is why Cyril calls what you do "masturbation". You could just as easily have said, "Ratting me out to tyrannical authority." Same event, different description. I don't really think you are actually striving for such philosophically deep objectivity. I think you're simply addicted to argument, and your tactic is diversionary, perhaps even unconsciously to yourself, subjectively stringing out desperately objective sub-contexts, endless fractals of meaningless contentions, while losing sight of the general context of origin.

5) Oh, the lengths you go to make it a riot. You are the consummate provocateur. Oh, the lengths you go to turn your masturbation into a circle jerk. Sheesh! You're the master! :D

The NAP is small and easy to hang onto. It's simply not the big utopian [or anti-utopian] thing you make it out to be.