For the tenth time, "aggression" as it applies to NAP, is clearly defined on page 1. Read it. The person who introduced me to that lifestyle? You're talking to him. Last bold: Uhhh what?
If they cheat There is no false advertizing in the rules of Texas holdem Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
It is completely voluntary and people use psychological tricks to gain advantage which usually ends up in winning money. But provided there's no cheating involved, this is ok?
The definition as it relates to the NAP is clearly laid out. Other definitions do not apply to the principle. This is how every philosophy works. This is not very hard to understand, unless you've never read any philosophy.
No. It would be unethical to administer meth by force or to drug someone unknowingly. Dealing meth would be similar to dealing alcohol or marijuana to another individual. Sure, the risk involved is higher, but that is something which the user/consumer (demand side) must be aware of and decide for themselves. So as long as a dealer is not coercing another individual into consuming a substance then there is no wrongdoing. What if there was a machine that could synthesise drugs - would this machine be enabling drug users to make bad decisions regarding drug consumption? Sure. However, as long as that individual is making a conscious choice to use that substance then the outcome/consequences of their choices fall entirely upon them. I can order as many sodas from a vending machine (i do not drink soda) as my wallet permits (however their are ways to crack soda vending machines as well), until I die from overconsumption, but whose fault was that? Surely the vending machine enabled my poor decisions and the manufacturing/distribution company supplied the substance, but are they to be held responsible? Under what precedent do we establish accountability and how can we hold third parties accountable when they are supplying a product/service and are accurately representing their offer?
yes of coarse Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app would it be wrong to deal.Meth and say it is weed? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
no I definatly understand. Hence my previous comment.on lables. I guess I don't believe in "non aggression" technically Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Yes, that is fraudulent. One would be falsely representing a service or product which does not allow the other party to give consent (because they are not truly aware of what they are consenting to). If the dealer said he had a mystery package and asked a customer I'd they would like to purchase it, then that would establish imformed consent. If the consumer is not informed or is given something they did not wittingly consent to then that is a form of fraud/coercion.
Ok. So now tell me is it OK to sell laced weed? Its 100% voluntary and he didn't false advertise. Its still weed? I guessing you'll say yes that's wrong aas well. How is that different from not lableing gmos? In order for a free market to exist there needs to be consumer awareness no? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Is he telling you what it is laced with prior to purchase? Awareness is crucial to establishing consent. This is why contracts contain extremely specific clauses and contain definitions so all parties can be informed. I am not sure if you still don't understand the concept of consent and voluntary participation, or if you are playing devil's advocate to expose loopholes and exploits. Either approach/stance is fine with me - this has been a constructive dialogue so far. We can keep probing this to no end, and I hope we do, as I don't have these types of discussions often.
I think you understand what I'm getting at. False advertising is a violation of nap yes? Is a "regualtion" that said people must reveal what's in their products redundant? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
A regulation is by itself a violation of nap - so I don't know if that would be redundant or simply ironic. False advertising, in my current understanding, is a violation of NAP because it cannot establish proper consent. However, maybe I am wrong.
a regulations isn't a violation of nap inherently. Nap allows for self defense. The purpose of regulations are to protect the consumers and workers Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I would say that regulations bar individuals from voluntarily accessing or providing certain services, and because of this regulations (and the manner in which they are enforced) violate NAP. Regulations are mostly preemptive or reactionary and have a blanket effect upon businesses. Their is no way a third-party regulatory agency could prohibit a business from supplying a service or product without using force - their only other options would be within the market, to disrupt the supply line of a certain product, either by purchasing the product before it reaches the consumer and destroying/redirecting/repurposing it, or integrating itself into the manufacturing/distribution/sales of that product and preventing consumers from purchasing/obtaining the product. Either method of interception would not be cost effective and would only be impeding consumers from voluntarily purchasing a product/service. Other methods of 'regulation' could be boycotts, information campaigns, providing a parrallel service/product, or seeking significant monetary compensation that would effectively shut the business down (however, does not fulfill the currrently established definition of a regulation). Consumers can choose to not to business with companies with poor health/safety standards and seek compensation for any damages incurred by their operation, but for one to initiate force upon others simply trying to trade or interact with that service would be a violation of nap. Similarily, if one decides to place arbitrary constraints upon a business and use force to do so, they would be in violation of NAP. What we see with our current system of government regulation is a violation of NAP, as we are not only seeking compensation for past damages (which does not inherently violate NAP) but restrict market operations (by force) to prevent future damages from possibly occuring. Self defense and preemptive defense are completely different. If a party has not expressed malicious intent, and is only supplying a product or service voluntarily to another party, then you have no right to interfere with their business. If they have violated your liberties, you are entitled to pursue compensation with that business and can then refuse to interact with them in the future. However, a company which is selling a product I am allergic to is not in violation of my basic right of self-ownership unless they use coercion to sell that product to me or administer it by force. If someone is allergic to peanuts, that doesn't mean they can prohibit a peanut-processing plant from operating simply becuase it has the potential to violate their well-being. One cannot prohibit a company from producing firearms simply becuase their is a potential for one of those fire arms to eventually cause bodily harm to that individual. If malicious intent is not established, and there is no forced interaction, I do not see how a business can be held responsible for an offense it did not yet commit. Does that make sense? I am not sure if the examples given are adequate...
it makes sense. But is it just semantics now? For example. Telling corperations that they cannot dump toxic waste into the river might qualify as a "regualtion". Regulations involving proper waste disposal protect people from things like contamination in their drinking water. This might seem redundant under normal anarchist ideals. I mean yea, if a corperation dumps things improperly and someone is affected as a result, one could claim damages and sue. But then again, the no harm no foul rule doesn't always hold up. What if its years of dumping toxins chemicals and no one was the wiser, suddenly you have sterile land that can't be farmed, people getting cancer, animals dying and.other bad things. Isn't it much more effective to just make a regulation requiring proper waste disposal. Or is that not a regulation but a law? Is it semantics? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Who owns the land that this toxic waste is being dumped into? How will a regulation be enforced? Edit: According to various sources ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_laws_and_regulations / https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/research/courseGuides/upload/UnderstandingLaws.pdf / http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-fs-laws-policies-regs-terms-2013-update.pdf), laws are enacted by Congress and regulations are adopted by regulatory agencies in order to enforce these laws.
it doesnt matter who's land it is. If you dump toxic chemicals into water on your land, it will affect your neighbors land, so its still a violation of rites. As for the "regulation" vs "law" I think as a general trend regulations are redundant and a violation of privacy. I'd say make it a law that you mist dispose of waste properly. Not a regulation? Does it violate nap to tell people they can't pollute other peoples land? Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Regulations are not worth the paper they are printed on without follow through. This is one of the reasons some say say regulations don't work: it's simply because the big violators either have the cash to altogether squirm out of penalties or treat said penalties as the cost of doing business. So yeah, regulations don't work.