Zack, I have had an "ah, ha' experience. Once again, we have a semantic dispute which ultimately devolves to "who gets to define the words aggression, contract, and libertarian."
I'll readily concede that you could have a libertarian society, living by NAP as its principle (or only) rule, which defines contract and aggression just as you would have it. The only problem, for me, is that I wouldn't want to live there. Now I feel confident that you will immediately assert: "Then you're not a libertarian." But, don't you see, you don't get to decide the meaning of the word for any but you. Ayn Rand, as the clear founder of Objectivism, had the cachet to get away with saying, "You are an Objectivist; he is not." Mostly others would buy in to that. Now she's dead; who decides who is and is not an Objectivist? The matter is rather more open. Not even David Nolan gets to define "libertarian' these days; and I believe he's still alive. You and I (and many, many others) support the NAP. In principle. But I'd bet that no two individuals would _fully_ agree on what, exactly, constitutes "aggression." The same thing is true of the word, "contract." Or "consent" for that matter. Ultimately, how you, as an individual, define those words is far less important than how your friends, neighbors, and those within your community define those words. (That is, to the extent that they agree. :) ) It's possible that if all of us who "support the NAP" agreed how these words should be defined, that we might make a little more progress toward actually creating a libertarian society. But I'll make a prediction right now: you will never live in a libertarian society if you insist, "My definition rules." Perhaps you recall Bruce Klein's "Atlantis." His proposed constitution and such were posted on-line and I had great fun pouring over it, line by line, and 'correcting' it so it would be closer to my ideal of a libertarian society. The interesting point, as I recall, was that even with its obvious 'flaws', it seemed to me a far better place to live than presently exists. As you have pointed out, it is also possible to construe the NAP in such a way, to construct a libertarian society so unappealing, that I would find it an undesirable place to live. I guess the moral is: "choose your neighbors wisely" or "heaven is in the details." G. Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Now all we need to do is determine how damages >> may be assessed, or adjudicated, and collected. >> >> > > The Contract that Jane agreed to (the one she need not have entered > into if she did not Freely Choose to do so) stated that > Non-Performance shall require payment of thrice the Damages, which > consist of every cent paid by Kevin in the first place. (Kevin's > non-performance is not an issue, because the Contract specifies that > his Consideration is made before hers begins.) > > >> Well most of us foresee a libertarian society as >> being far more prosperous than the one we now endure. Possibly Jane >> > will never be in > >> such a jam. Hopefully few, if any, will be forced to select the least >> dark and dismal of their limited opportunities. >> >> > > NO ONE is Forced to select it. The option ought to be AVAILABLE to > those who do so choose, however. > > >> Nor am I anxious to construct a dark and dismal >> society where every person has a lingering fear of >> being carted off to 'the organ banks' >> in satisfaction of some debt. >> >> > > I think you are perfectly goddam aware that most people will not make > such a CHOICE. > > In any system, the more CHOICES you have the better off you are. In > fact, that is one proposed meaning of Wealth. > You propose to LIMIT CHOICES - and you propose to Initiate Force to do > so. For if we're not talking about FORCING people to be unable to > offer and accept such CHOICES, then what ARE we talking about? > > >> Whatever we craft, if it is to be real, must also be >> attractive; it must actually be far more attractive >> than the current society in order to overcome inertia. >> >> > > Fuck Society. We're crafting a [;ace where there is a colleciton pf > Individuals, some of them more fond of NAPP than others, where there > might be a Justice Agency that might enforce NAP to a great or small > degree. > You propose that there be no such Justice Agency, so that Kevin fears > that he can be bilked and therefore Jane's children must die. I > propose an Agency that can assure Kevin that, IN THE EVENT THAT Jane > makes the Agreement, she will live up to her end of the bargain or > Kevin will be recompensed. > > >> It is usually far easier to let things continue >> as they are rather than disorder your life. >> If a libertarian society is to someday manifest, >> people must become ever so eager to live there. >> >> > > Jane and Kevin would be eager to live there. Who are you to say they > should not be allowed to make their Agreement and be held to it? > > >> Some better solution to debt collection must be proposed. >> >> > > You don't get to decide which form of Debt Collection people FREELY > CHOOSE to agree to. Those who, like you, think it is a horrible form > of debt collection, will not agree to it and will risk not getting the > money, that's all. Jeez THINK. > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
