Or a better example: a man cannot with his own hands strangle two people on different sides of the globe at one time, as you can’t be two places at once. But if it were to happen, it would be coercive.
So you’re now (implicitly) admitting that the scenario you’ve presented is impossible?
Just about impossible, yes. No way of knowing for sure, though. Anyway, if it were to occur, what do you think?
@Quis: Impossible and “nearly impossible” are completely different things. You admit that a person cannot be at two places at once. It’s not “nearly impossible” to be at two places at once, it’s actually impossible. That’s an important distinction. So, you need to make up your mind whether it is impossible or nearly impossible for men to be angels. Which is it?
Clayton -
That’s not the same as impossible. So you haven’t admitted that the scenario you’ve presented is impossible. What makes you think it’s possible (however remotely)?
Why not?
Edit: See Clayton’s post above mine. We’re essentially saying the same thing.
I haven’t surveyed every person on Earth, so I don’t know of it’s possible. I’d say it’s nearly impossible, for example, for US government to privatize everything and dissolve overnight, but I can say it would not be coercive. Saying “it’d be impossible for our rulers to dissolve the state overnight” is probably a hyperbole.
I don’t see why we can’t take a position on it.
Also, Clayton, check the above posts near your first post. I meant to address one of them to you. Still confused as to how a monopoly of the NAP would be aggressive.
Also, people can make mistakes in their personal lives but not make mistakes in the government of Ruritania. You can’t say for sure that someone will make a mistake in the government of RuritNia, so suppose nobody does (even if during a very short period of time). Now is the question answerable?
So let me get this straight. You want us to suppose that there’s an area of land called “Ruritania” within/over which multiple dispute-resolution organizations operate. However, one of them, which operates over the whole area, consists only of people who somehow 1) can judge every dispute perfectly according to the non-aggression principle, and 2) can together necessarily overpower everyone else (if need be) so that their judgements are enforced. Is this an accurate assessment of the scenario you’ve presented?
How exactly can a principle be monopolized?
It is. It’s important to add how it’s funded, though, too. Not with taxation. (See original post.)
Responding to your second-to-last post. Okay. Law based perfectly upon the principle, as you understand it would be. And that law is monopolized.
Right, not only do they judge every dispute perfectly in accordance with the non-aggression principle, but they themselves also behave perfectly in accordance with it.
I think you mean my last post (at the time). Anyway, what do you mean by “law”?
The legal code the government has monopolized.
Where did this legal code come from?
The people in government with no legitimate property rights wrote the legal code, and it’s exactly the leal code that a “libertarian society” would ask for. I think we’ve established that it’s not likely.
By the way, anyone else have a take on this?
Side Question:
Is the non-agression principle a contradiction of itself, if it is enforced (by way of forcing people to not use force)?
No, the NAP is not a contradiction.
Jared, if the NAP is enforced (by way of forcing people to not use force), it is defensive force being used, so no. Defensive force is not aggression.