Applying the NAP to life is subjective no matter how often you say it isn’t. You sound like a young earth creationist right now. Your Bible is as fallible as theirs.
If you don’t think you need to have a right to engage in commerce as a condition of being alive in our society, then try and see how long you can survive without engaging in commerce or violating somebody else’s property rights. I’ll be waiting right here to see when you crack.
Just curious for contextual purposes, but wasn’t the vast majority of southern segregation in commerce prior to the 1960s codified by local and/or state law?
Me? No, I'm asking you. Do I have the right to engage in commerce with you? (by the way, your post is the absolute cherry on the top of not understanding the NAP. holy shit! you think the NAP means no one engages in commerce?? ha ha ha)
No. I didn't say that no one engages in commerce. I said that if you don’t think that a right to engage in commerce is essential to living in our society you should try giving it up and see how long you survive.
3rd time is the charm again: Do I have the right to engage in commerce with you? wouldn't a more appropriate and applicable suggestion be: Try only engaging in voluntary interactions and see how long you survive! ?? I think maybe the part you are missing is that commerce falls under a larger umbrella according to the NAP of voluntary interactions. You are trying to wedge commerce into the NAP, when it really does not fit. It's all abut property rights. If you sell me your car, or I go buy an apple at the grocery store, or sell my laptop on Ebay, it's all voluntary interactions based on property rights. those specific interactions fall under a narrower category of commerce, true, but "commerce" has no special place according to the NAP. I also think maybe you are forgetting how often you are denied the "right" to engage in commerce.
Yes. The argument that free market libertarians make regarding this topic is that the only reason systematic discrimination existed post-slavery was because of government regulations. They argue that some white people would have served black people in the same manner as whites if they were legally allowed to do it. There's some evidence to suggest that this would have happened in the years before Jim Crow Laws or perhaps if federal troops had stayed in the reconstruction south: http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/a-brief-history-of-jim-crow I think it's a bullshit argument because enough people obviously thought codifying segregation into law was acceptable so who knows what they would have done to white businesses serving black customers, but at least the theory makes sense.
Are you asking me or telling me? In the context of the NAP, incorrect, commerce is 100% about property rights and voluntary interactions. Recall that your initial statement was that denying someone the right to participate in commerce is a violation of the NAP. Also recall that I said based on that statement, it doesn't seem like you understand the NAP. We've come full circle. If you think commerce isn't about property rights in the context of the NAP, and denying someone the right to participate in commerce is a violation of the NAP, you do not understand the NAP. I'm sorry, but you have failed to demonstrate how denying someone the "right" to participate in commerce is a violation of the NAP. I still think I have the right to engage in commerce with you though
Jesus fucking Christ. I have been saying all along that commerce is what the BAP is all about. As a libertarian your only understanding of property rights is via the lens of commerce. There are no property rights for the NAP to protect without commerce. Denying commerce is denying property. Ergo, it violates the NAP to deny commerce.
Free speech champion and noted alpha gets fee fee's hurt, sues. http://torontosun.com/news/provinci...ation-suit-against-wilfrid-laurier-university
That's not true though. Again, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the NAP, despite repeatedly tellign me you knwo all about it. The NAP is not about commerce. Go back and re-read what exactly the NAP is, I think it will help you understand where you are wrong in your belief that commerce is what the NAP is all about.
If you believe that, then I really think you don’t understand commerce and property rights. Or libertarianism.
assuming that you are using the first definition of commerce; the activity of buying and selling, especially on a large scale. I'll try to help. the NAP can be generally divided into 2 categories: ownership of yourself (your body), and ownership of your property. Right off the bat we can see that commerce has nothing to do with ownership of your body, unless you are talking about the 3rd definition of commerce, which I don't think you are here, so correct me if that's wrong, or we are talking about the buying and selling of your body, which I also don't think you are talking about here. So right there, in the very very VERY basic definition of the NAP, we have a huge portion of it that has nothing to do with commerce (note, you said: "I have been saying all along that commerce is what the NAP is all about"). Please explain how ownership of your body relates to commerce. But even beyond that, if we ONLY look at the ownership of property here, we see things the NAP addresses that have nothing to do with commerce. vandalism, fraud, pollution, any types of free interactions. Remember, your contention here is that commerce is what the NAP is all about. While I have agreed with you that commerce plays a role in the NAP, it's most certainly not what it is "all about".
Libertarianism is all about commerce and ancaps (and other strict NAP adherents) can only undefstand the value of property rights via their commercial value. Less devout libertarians acknowledge personal rights as separate from the property value of the self and place importancebon the obviously flawed and contradictory NAP.
So while libertarianism has roots in the NAP, I think it woudl be much cleaner not to confuse things here. Let's stay focused on the NAP without adding to the mix. you keep saying it's "all about" something that it's not all about. The NAP addresses things like taxation, the military draft, the use of violence in self defense. none of those have anything to do with commerce. Can you address your understanding of the NAP in relation to those particular issues, and how in the world they have anything to do with commerce, which, according to you, the NAP is "all about"? Again, because you have not clarified, I assume we are talking about commerce as defined as the activity of buying and selling things. The right to use physical violence to defend myself from physical violence has what exactly to do with buying and selling things?
You just commodified the self in your previous response. You can’t claim that and then say that justification of personal violence or the draft has nothing to do with commerce. The reductionist view of strict NAP adherents and ancaps reduces property (including the self) to its commercial value. You can’t have it both ways.
I wandered over to god emperor JP’s subreddit...it is absolutely amazing And this is one of the best things I’ve ever seen on the internet...
what specifically are you referring to? The right to use physical violence to defend myself from physical violence has what exactly to do with buying and selling things?
The whole pod is great but the Peterson stuff starts around 1:20 https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast...ight-at-you/id1331317387?i=1000415118144&mt=2
It breaks down the demo info for Jordan Peterson’s reddit fan page and shows the large majority of posters are white, single men.
Sounds pretty badass... “I lost 50 pounds,” he told Rogan. “My appetite has probably fallen by 70%. I don’t get blood sugar dysregulation problems. I need way less sleep.” His depression and anxiety vanished; his mind was sharp. “And my gum disease is gone. Like, what the hell?”