One more thing:
If the state did stop enforcing the border (like literally stopped enforcing it, the way these anarchists want, which is different than even what most liberals want), it probably would end the state, in the sense that the tax revenue is gobbled up immediately.
And it would be chaotic. And a different state would re-form, because that's the mindset of the people right now. And it would probably be much worse than now.
It's basically a softer version of the way other "anarchists" throw rocks thru windows and stuff, and expect real change to happen that way.
Oh man this made me laugh, to the point of shedding a tear.
I started looking at some of your older posts to get a better idea of your views. I prob won't be able to look at much of it as I'm rather "limited" in my time. Caring for babies is a very time consuming endeavor, well worth it though.
This was a very interesting dialog. I really appreciate how open minded and logically consistent your interactions go. That is a fairly rare quality these days. I would probably engage in much more conversations with people on "meaningful" subjects if more people were willing to utilize your approach.
I have not "studied" the NAP, but believe that I have at least a rudimentary understanding of it. As far as I understand I agree with it, but where people get confused i think is the interpretation of aggression.
Like in the strip club analogy. If someone was to purchase land in a community under false pretenses and then turn around and start a strip club or a brothel, where it wasn't welcomed. Wouldn't that be aggression against their neighbors property? Would it not in turn open the door for retaliatory aggression against the original offender? I don't personally see this as violating the NAP.
I just couldn't imagine people would every be able to live in close proximity without agreeing to abide by some level of voluntary restraint concerning their property. Now out in the country if it's 40 or 100 ache plots or something, it may be a different story. But still if someone was bringing "troublemakers" into a community(without personally dealing with them), that would also be a violation of the NAP and would give grounds for people to act in defense.
Of course this is just my thoughts on NAP. What do you think? Am I not understanding the NAP?
I think you're understanding it correctly.
One thing is that it will be so easy for the strip club people to go where they're perfectly welcome, like it doesn't make any practical sense to build it where they stick out like sore thumb and where they aren't welcome. (Some potential customers might feel weird about pulling up in a suburban neighborhood.) It would be better to have it in a different type of area. So whether or not it's an act of aggression, it probably isn't wise. Whatever you're doing to lower their property values probably isn't a +EV economic decision for you either.
And especially in the future you could even use blockchains to prove residence in a certain area and how you feel about a business being next to you, and it could be a criteria that people considered, as a way of essentially doing p2p zoning. (Like knowing that there isn't a govt doing it, we'd know we should be sensitive to this metric.)
It just depends what exactly a stateless world looks like.
I tend to think land could be collectively owned, like it's voluntary to be a part of that collective, but you own it as whole communities. And so then there's just some internal mechanism that they'd have in place that they use to determine what is built where. And if it didn't have overall consensus then they'd just know they couldn't build it.
The NAP basically just means it's never correct to initiate aggression. I have a hard time seeing the strip club thing as an act of aggression, but it probably would always break a protocol or norm of a decentralized community and be "governed" by those plus the natural incentives of it probably not being a +EV idea.
I tend to think like 20 levels into things. So I thought of a bunch of reasons it could be considered aggression primarily because what I would perceive a "Strip club" would be in that sort of world, and who it would draw in.(Which prob isn't fair, nor accurate.) But those are all theoretical and it would take far to long to write out...
So If I may present a a simpler scenario...
A new guy moves in next door. He proceeds to throw massive parties, blaring very loud music all throughout the night. This prevents you from being able to sleep, mixed with the fear that his unruly highly intoxicated/high guests will attempt to harm those in the neighborhood. The people have tried to plead with him to stop this but he refuses stating that it's his house and he can do what he pleases, and it's not his fault what his friends do to anyone else.
Is it acceptable for the neighborhood to react with aggression to his (psychological?) act of aggression to them?
Ok, so ya, something like "stripper comes outside drunk and naked in front of 10-year-olds playing football" is a specific thing that might correctly be considered an act of aggression. I was taking "the strip club situation" more generically as just an example of something that's built that most people don't want to be built.
I think generally speaking you'd firstly want to regard this person as a nuisance and anti-social etc. Someone who is a disturbance to other people. And so (1) if it's a situation where land is collectively owned/used by a group of people like I described before, the consequence for him would be he won't be welcome in this group anymore and will have to leave. If (2) it's like we all own individual plots of land, then there'd probably be a need for a robust social ratings score. And maybe like when it's shown to the utilities companies who provide water and electricity to these houses, that look, everyone is pissed off (and maybe you prove that this music playing is really occurring, so that they know it's not just a baseless conspiracy), maybe the utility company knows that they should cut him off, and if they don't that the rest of the neighborhood will be ready to switch providers.
So whether or not his music playing would be an act of aggression....
Even if it isn't, it's still the kind of thing that's disturbing and generally not desirable and should be dealt with. You wouldn't have to respond with an act of aggression (you don't need to fight fire with fire even if it was an act of aggression), but you could respond with peaceful mechanisms that discourage the behavior and make it impractical.
Basically, it's naturally against your interests to do things that make life worse for other people. The state basically provides sanctuary for people to be #*%@s. But when we're living freely and p2p you basically have every reason in the world not to want to piss off your fellow people.
These mechanisms to encourage the right behavior would be important even for more nuanced and subjective things like what degree of nudity a community finds acceptable. Different communities will probably have different standards, and even if there isn't an objective "right" way to do it, it seems bad to walk around naked in a community who doesn't want it. So you'd want some way of socially enforcing whatever is thought to be improper behavior.
And this music player for example can find somewhere to live where they don't mind loud music at all hours of the night.
The music thing maybe could technically be considered an act of aggression, because the sound waves are physically occurring. (A more extreme example would eventually reach the point where it hurts your ears.) But even if it's not, it's still something that would need to be dealt with. If you did want to respond with aggression, I think taking away their stereo equipment seems justifiable. (But then they can just buy more; so having a social mechanism in place to police this stuff is more important and the better way to stomp it out.)