Nap Grey Areas And Implications

Discussion in 'Politics' started by yurigadaisukida, Jul 22, 2014.

  1. Hey yuri, did you just do a 180 or a 360 ;)

     
  2. #22 yurigadaisukida, Jul 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2014
    more like a 45.

    I've just realized my views were extremist and I was unable to consider exceptions to my logic

    I also became aware that you can violate nap in a 100% voluntary scenario which makes nap and volunteerism mutually exslcusice from eachother
    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  3.  
    1st Line: OSHA? Occupational Safety Hazard Administration? That's one big waste of tax dollars. I'm related to individuals who have met with representatives of OSHA (owning and running restaurants) and the representative told them that he could walk into any restaurant in the United States and write tens of thousands of dollars worth of fines. Oh, and one of the staircases at the restaurant has 3 handrails, all as a result of different regulations intended to "defend" the public from us.... It's a waste of everyone's time and money. The people keeping those people safe are the employees themselves and their managers, not some regulation.
     
    [​IMG]
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    3rd Line: The fact that boycotts do not work suggests that most people prefer that these businesses exist. For example, my girlfriend and I were discussing "underpaid" labor one time with some of her friends. She had her macbook in her lap, and the majority of us had iphones. Apple uses various low-cost labor sourcing in several parts of Asia. I said something to the effect of, "Am I the only one here that will admit to being self-interested to the point of preferring my phone over not supporting these business practices?" Nobody else was interested in conceding 
     
    It may be trendy to hate Walmart, Mcdonald's, etc. but most people would prefer to have the discussion with a McCafe in hand. There are successful boycotts periodically, but it has to be something that people actually care about, not just rhetoric people use to relate to each other. 
     
  4. Do you not see the error in this logic?

    To sum up what you said "regulations don't work all that efficiently and many are a waste of time and money, therefore all regulations are pointless wastes of money and time."
    It does not suggest that. Logically there could be numerous reasons boycotts do not work.
    The public is largely uninformed for one. Many don't care. Why should people in China suffer in sweatshops for Americans? Because its voluntary? Americans don't give a shit. They'd rather not know their cheap goods are basically the result of indentured sservitude labor.
    As I stated previously, how can the public protest things they are unaware of.

    In monsabto's own words "if people knew the foods were gmos they wouldn't buy them"

    In order for people to care they need to be informed. My argument is that misinformation can be a violation of nap especially in the example here where wallmart is able to get away with so much shit and not get in trouble
    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  5.  
     
    No, actually I specifically referenced your statement, " there are federal regulations that require you to give employees a safe work are free from hazards." and made no such claim about "all regulations". You put words in my mouth. Strawman.
     
     
    People in China "suffer in 'sweatshops" for their own benefit, not yours or mine. These individuals choose the best work alternative that they are able to perform. Up until relatively recently, the alternatives were worse. Their limited skills and education in addition to their enormous  unskilled labor supply are the reason their wages are so low. Nonetheless, China's middle class has  exploded to unprecedented levels in the last decade (for outsourcing reasons among others). I will not make the normative argument about what individuals on  the other side of the world "should" do, but I'm  happy there are more alternatives than there were previously.
     
    By the way, conversing with you would be easier if you stuck to one or two topics. In the above post you brought up 
    1. general theory of public regulation\t
    2. boycotting\t
    3. labor outsourcing\t
    4. Monsanto\t
    5. whether or not Walmart violates the Non-Aggression Principle\t
    6. American awareness of... (various issues)\t
    7. the assertion that incorrect information can be a violation of the Non-Agression Principle
     
  6. Aaaww, Yuri, are you turning liberal on us. :)
     
  7.  
    No way it's a mere 45 degree turn.
     
  8. 45 degrees from anarchy is hovering on religious right
     
  9. If it's 100% voluntary how did you violate the principle?
     
  10. Yuri is making good points.
     
  11.  
    [​IMG]
     
  12. #32 goober0331, Jul 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2014
    :laughing:, Oprah....
     
  13. prepare for the "if you're not a liberal gtfo" thread
     
    please tell me you remember that
     
  14.  
  15. Why prohibit fireworks but allow automobiles when they can be misused and irreversibly injure or kill someone? If I burn down your house, send me a bill.  If you run me over I'll send you one.   You're looking for a perfect system that fills all needs but there isn't one.  You're too deep for me but I applaud your effort.
     
  16. because its aggressive.

    Nap stands for non aggression principal

    My argument is that tricking people out of money and other similar things, are akin to robbery.

    Just because its voluntary doesn't make it OK. It violates the basic principle

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  17. I think you misunderstand my stance.

    I'm not trying to argue for fireworks being illegal. I'm saying that putting people at risk with no liability is a violation of that person's rights

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  18. #38 Lenny., Jul 25, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2014
     
    Could you go into further detail of what "tricking people out of money" means? Fraud?
     
    The concept of fraud can be addressed by the N.A.P. I would agree that fraud is akin to robbery.
     
    It's a crime with a victim and libertarians are OK with punishing fraudsters. Not saying that the N.A.P. is the end-all-be-all, but I'm not sure if you've really delved into the whole concept too deeply. 
     
  19.  
    What makes that arguement not valid against any political ideology or any position on  any issue?
     
  20. #40 yurigadaisukida, Jul 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2014
    I didn't put words in your mouth. The opposite is actually true. Try reading it again.

    I claimed that a regulation doesbt hhave to he a violation of nap. This is because self defense is permissible under nap and regulations can be defensive.

    You asked for an example (which anyone would take as a challenge to mean you disagree).

    I gave an example and you assumed I was talking about osha specifically. (Putting words in my mouth). I was talking about the general concept. You then proceeded to tell.me osha is a waste and is pointless. When I assumed you meant all regulations are pointless you called strawman.

    So which is is it? do you agree with me or do you not? Stop playing word games. Are all "regulations" violations of nap or are they not?

    And also I did infact stick to one topic. I'm sorry you can't see how my examples are related to my point.

    All those "topics" you listed were EXAMPLES of why the consumer responsibility makes completely free markets impractical.

    There was only 1-2 topics just as you requested.

    Topic 1 nap can be violated in a voluntary scenario.
    Topic 2 consumer responsibility vs regulations in a "free market"

    You aren't making sense. Do you have anything to say about the actual topic or are you here fofor word games?

    Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     

Share This Page