Problem: NAP people not voting means statists gain power. So voting could be thought of as defensive. Maybe not entirely NAP compliant but possibly more palatable than armed rebellion.
Problem: voting means statists gain power (perceived legitimacy to control via your participation). It's not NAP compliant, nor is the only alternative armed rebellion.
Alternatives that I can think of:
A. Civil war
B. leaving the country
A is only an option if you are pretty sure you will win.
B only works until you run out of places to run to.
Related problem is abolishing the state in an environment where other, less NAP-compliant states exist and might move in to fill the vacuum, end result being less liberty.
Yes, all who vote are technically statists, but if libertarian-leaning people don't vote (logic of NAP being incompatible with voting), more coercive and aggressive statists will rule.
Also, why do you think the NAP is a good policy? I have seen good reasons for and against it and am leaning to it being a weak policy.
NAP isn't a policy. It's the shell of an idea and a general guiding post.
Why do you think it's a weak policy? What are the aforementioned reasons for and against?
There are times when aggression is warranted. The NAP seems okay, but it can be wrong sometimes. I'm not dead set against it. I just dont see it as being that good of an idea.
NAP is rather self-evident, no? What sane person would want to steal from others or use violence against them?
Lots of sane people actually.
Really? You consider theft and assault sane activities?
Being bad is not a mental illness. It is wrong to assume anyone who does bad things has a mental illness. The most evil actions are likely done by same people.
You seem to be using a very strange definition of sanity. Walking up to a random person in the street and punching them in the face is not normal behavior.
It isn't normal, but that doesn't make it a mental illness. A mental illness is a problem that makes it hard for you to participate in society.
Punching people in the face for no reason tends to make it hard for you to participate in society... Well, in a sane society anyway.
Making a bad choice is not a mental illness. The person can take part in society. I think you are using the term mental illness wrong. Evil is more often done by the sane.
Violent criminals are usually removed from society, for good reason.
Which has nothing to do with mental illness. That is punishment.
It's punishment too, but one of the points (maybe the main point) of prison (or forced psychological care) is to remove people with irrational (insane), destructive behaviour from soc.
You are confusing separate issues as one. The threat of punishment is to deter crime. A person does not need to be mentally I'll to commit a crime. Quit demonizing the mentally ill.
I'm not demonizing the mentally ill. I'm well aware that you can have mental problems without committing crimes.
You can also commit crimes without a mental illness. You are trying to create a false equivalency that is quite nasty. You are trying to demonize the mentally ill.
In what way am I trying to demonize the mentally ill? If unprovoked aggression is not a sign of mental issues then the definition needs to change. What is your definition?
A mental deficiency that makes it difficult for someone to participate in society. Not by choice. Criminal behaviour is often a choice.
Unprovoked aggression is going to make it difficult to participate in society... Yes, crime is a choice. Why do people make that choice?
It doesn't really make it hard to participate in society. Mental deficiencies are not a choice. One reason to break the law is not caring about the law.
Do you think people are going to trade and interact equally with violent criminals as with peaceful people?
People do it all the time... so yes.
Really. Suppose you have a hardware store. A known serial domestic abuser walks in and tries to buy an axe. Do you let him?
Since storms dknt perform background checks, then use. You putting "known" in there changes things a lot.
So your assumption that criminals won't be shunned in society is based on their crimes remaining unknown? So if they are known, they would be shunned?
Sure, but shunned is a different issue. There are other reasons one can have difficulty in society. Not all those reasons are a mental illness.
Would you agree that there is something seriously wrong with a person that commits random acts of violence?
Sure, for a given value of seriously.
Is there a major difference between having something seriously wrong with you (mentally or behaviorally) and being insane?
Yes, they are two separate classifications. You can be a bad person without any mental illness. It is more common to be a bad person and same then a bad person with a mental illness.
So evil vs insane? How do you tell the difference between a person doing evil deeds because he is evil and a person doing evil deeds because he is insane?
The presence of a mental illness is what differentiates between those.
You're just repeating the classification. I'm asking how do you tell the difference? People don't have labels on them displaying their mental classification.
A doctor usually. Symptoms let you know. Violent crime isn't a symptom.
Obviously a doctor is the person doing the evaluation. Obviously they use "symptoms". I bet violent crime can be seen as a symptom.
If you commit real crimes, like theft, assault, rape, murder, you have serious mental/behavioral issues. Whether all criminals qualify according to some DSM manual isn't that relevant.
That is not true at all. Actually most mentally I'll people are not violent. You really ate wrong to trust to define criminal behaviour as a mental illness.
I've never said that most mentally ill people are violent. Why are you making things up? Do you really think assaulting people at random is sane?
I make up nothing. Comparing criminality to mental illness is saying that the mentally ill are violent.
Yes I think murder and assault are mostly done by the same.
I'm arguing that violent criminals have mental issues. You are turning it around and trying to make it seem like I claim all people with mental issues are criminals. This is not cool.
Violence is very natural. Hardly a mental deficiency. You keep saying all criminals have .dental deficiencies, which is objectively wrong. Your definition isn't the definition.
Natural is not the same as good, or healthy, or sane.
How dare you suggest that all people with cavities are criminals!? /s
You kill me Sam. Thanks for the daily dose of comedy gold.
What do you think defines a mental illness?
Sanity isn't encouraged in our global cult of statism.
Most people are mentally ill. Thus, the norm for "sanity" isn't sanity, but mental illness.
No wonder theft is so common.
Common is common. A mental illness is partly defined by making it hard to participate in regular society. So I think you are using the wrong term.
It isn't perceived legitimacy. It is actual legitimacy. Propaganda that discourages voting originated with those who want to discourage the lower classes from voting.
Based on what? Your opinion?
Do you believe that it's ok for government to force you to fund things that you're opposed to?
A good metaphor is a temperature setting for a crowded public place. The right temperature is one that makes equal amounts of complaints for too hot and too cold.
Yes, and yes. If we go by what you want that is tyranny. We instead go by what the people want. No one should be perfectly happy.
“No one should be perfectly happy”
I can’t say I agree with this at all. Happy is the entire point of life. If your not happy then all that remains is sadness & disappointment.
Isn't happy the result of living a purposeful life?
Happy is the entire purpose of life! Happy is also a choice that can be made everyday. I choose to be habitually happy every single day. Life is much better this way 😎👌🏻
How is happy the entire purpose of life? Could you explain that further?
So if instead of waiting for all these achievements/results in order to be happy. Instead you can just simply choose happiness regardless of circumstances. Habitual happiness.
What do you mean by "choose happiness"?
You always have a choice in any present moment circumstance to be happy or not. It is a choice to search for and focus on the positive/happy and hold onto that instead of anger/upset
When your in traffic you have a choice to either be annoyed or angry your stuck in traffic or choose to put on some music happily enjoying a few extra songs on your way home.
I prefer meditating during such times. It's less dangerous.
Meditation is great! It trains your mind from running on autopilot all day to you having control over what you give your focus to. I have been meditating for almost 1 year daily now.
In everything that we do, it is always with the end result to be achieving happiness. Go on vacation/happy, buy something/happy, choose a mate/happy. It always comes back to happy.
Perhaps you could define what you mean by happiness.
Feeling happy in your emotions. Feel happy with the expression of happiness on your face. Experience happiness inside your mind&body. Feel the feeling of happiness as much as possible.
Happiness without deeper any meaning is as empty (and destructive) as nihilism. Happiness can't exist without the contrast of mundanity. Perpetual happiness would be merely normal.
I have been making happiness my default feeling for the past year and I can promise you that it is not mundane and it has only enriched my life. Life is better when you Feel Happiness
Maybe you'll have to define it better. I think thankfulness, contentedness etc. are precursors to occasional happy moments. You can still be sad/disappointed but choose to be thankful.
I do agree with what you said though about “you can be sad/disappointed but choose to be thankful”.
Very true
Being sad/disappointed can happen but holding onto that feeling is where the problems occur. Being thankful/content can happen and holding onto that is where happiness occurs.
When bad things inevitably happen in your life choosing to be happy about it is pathological. Someday your parents are going to die. Friends will betray you. You need a better plan.
Bad things will always happen, sure, but focusing on the bad only makes it worse. Finding the good within the bad brings better perspective/insight. It’s not pathological at all.
When my parents eventually die, I will be grateful and happy for the many wonderful years we shared. When a friend betrays me I can be happy for all the joys we shared & hope them well
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 🇺🇸
It was poorly worded. This analogy is closer.
Like temperature in a large public building. The correct temperature is the one that makes equal complaints of too hot and too cold.
I agree that is a better analogy, however is there a reason that the cold cannot be given blankets and the too warm be given cooler clothing? Everyones happiness is still achievable.
You will then find people who hate the blankets, and or hate dressing with less. When you get enough people together anything you think of will post of someone.
It is the difference between living life from a glass half empty or glass half full perspective. You always receive whatever your expectations permit. Positive expectations 👌🏻
There is always a way for everyone’s needs to be satisfied. Assuming everyone can be happy is far for effective/beneficial than assuming everyone’s unhappiness.
Diminishing unhappiness is a better goal then increasing everyone's happiness, even though they sound the same they are not.
Like how science works by disproving instead of proving.
What you just said has a Glass half full/Glass half empty perspective.
The positive perspective alternative will always achieve a better result for everyone if it is what’s desired.
Since what is desired is varied then increasing happiness for one will sometimes decrease happiness for another.
That said happiness shouldn't be the highest standard anyway.
Fair enough although there is usually a means to create happiness for all. As with the room too cold/too hot situation. Cold gets warmer clothes/hot get cooler clothing. Everyone happy
Doesn't work in a public building. People wont want your handout clothes, or like being told what to wear.
Glass half empty perspective 😉
It is just as easy to assume that the cold will be grateful for the warmer clothes/heat and the hot will be grateful for the cooler clothing/AC
We are talking about public buildings in real life. We dont hand out clothes and tell people how to dress when they go to the mall.
This is how public buildings are actually managed.
"No one should be perfectly happy."
Could you explain what you mean by that?
Society should not be designed around the wishes of one individual.
Are you saying that instead of having society designed around "you", it is designed around "the people"?
Yes. I am also saying often people dont realise that the things they dislike are things the people asked for.
"it is designed"
*have it designed around
Based on democratic ideals, i suppose.
What are democratic ideals, and why those?
