David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

This is their definition of 'voluntary': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntary

done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice

- Coincidentally, it's also yours.

true. However, there were fabulously successful railroads (e.g. great northern) which were entirely privately funded, even down to securing property easements (which these days would be done using eminent domain). IIRC the great northern was really one of the few railway that didn't suffer a downturn and shutter itself during that era... It's now a part of BNSF.

>> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force.

Nope. Our "rights" are an idea, but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights.

In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone and starts running away, you have the right to try and stop him because he has no right to take your property. It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.

Nobody here is claiming that markets are perfect. However, the claim is that economic redistribution on the part of government will over time fail to help the very constitutents they are supposed to protect and instead enrich the rich. This has happened time after time and shows no sign of stopping because of fundamental problems, which you partially hit on when you talked about regulatory capture (and goldman sachs, which uses so much state privilege that it's not entirely clear how much 'free market' there is in that company). The point is, that regulatory capture is inevitable.

"[The socialists declare] that the State owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth. Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ... But is it possible? ... Whence does [the State] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary? ...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the State. The public treasury will be literally pillaged.

And here is the clincher (think very hard about the last sentence):

Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success."

In other words. It's perfectly reasonable for society to want to do things that go against the precept of "profit first". But if society should want to do such a thing, it should do it through private charity and not through the coffers of the state.

I practice what I preach. I volunteer every week feeding sick people and personally run a non-profit scientific corporation.

>> Therein lies the problem though, even if we accept the NAP, we can never agree on what is force or violence and what is the initiation of force

No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Complaining that the definitions of everyday words are unclear is just a bullshit distraction. If that were the case, we simply could not communicate at all.

>> Actually I value pragmatism and social utility well over consistency when it comes to my society.

Yes, well, now we're in the territory of collectivist thinking, which is just completely ass-backwards considering we're all just individuals, not part of The Borg. Collectivism is one of the supporting pillars of States. We're bombarded with the idea that we must all be subject to a ruling class for the common good, that we need to pay taxes to help poor people, and so on.

And before you go there, wanting to keep your property does not mean you want poor people to die. You just want everyone's property rights to be respected.

>> If a society is entirely rational based on a narrow vision of rational morality but ends up worse for the majority of people than one that is morally corrupt from top to bottom... well you'll find me in Corruptopia.

In case you haven't noticed, you already find yourself in Corruptopia. Seriously, dude. Bailouts ring a bell? Campaign contributions (=bribes), etc? You know your politicians are thoroughly corrupt and lie just about every time they open their mouths, and you insist on holding on to that?

>> But we should definitely aim for one that respects your morals (property rights) over anyone else's (equal access to land, food etc) ?

Not "over" anyone else's. Obviously, everyone has the exact same rights as everyone else. That means no one is allowed to take my property, and I'm not allowed to take anyone else's property. It all works out just fine. Oh, and rights can't be in conflict - that would break our notion of rights. Just like black is black and not white at the same time, the right to take someone's property cannot exist while people have the right to keep their property. Get it?

>> Yup, in some circumstances. For instance if your property is radioactive and near my house. There are many other exceptions as you yourself have mentioned.

The obvious answer was "no", and that's enough. We're not talking about edge cases here, because there are countless, and wading through them is pointless. There are even more circumstances where it takes zero effort to adhere to the NAP.

Here's a good rule of thumb: any time you don't want to aggress against anyone, you'll automatically adhere to the NAP, and if you're sane, you'll realize that this is pretty much all the time. See, in reality, there is no problem with the NAP, even if no moral rule can "cover" every possible situation ever. That just can't be required. As mentioned, the best we can do is "close enough", and the NAP certainly is.

>> non-violent pacifists and never, ever punch someone in the face for saying something they don't like about their girl (for instance).

Right, and what fucking sense does it make to physically assault someone for saying something bad about you or your girlfriend? Insecure much? Feeling violent?

>> I'm sorry, but you start with an ill-defined premise (the NAP), admit there are hundreds of holes or grey areas, and then try to tell us that we should build our entire moral outlook and society on it anyway. It's rather funny really.

Dude. You haven't got much to go by here. See above. You know that the NAP works just fine.

Besides, when you say "we should build our entire moral outlook and society on it", who exactly is that we you refer to? What should we do? What should you do? Who's anyone to tell you what you should do, as long as you don't harm others? You're thinking in collectivist terms again, which is understandable, since we've all been brainwashed to think like that. But you need to wake up and realize that we're not The Borg. We're not parts of some collective consciousness. We're all just individuals, and make our individual choices. Choices have consequences, and everyone is responsible for his own.