Hacker News Reader

Comment by lend000 | Hacker News Reader

Similarly, be careful not to generalize this to all libertarians...

Most libertarians have varying stances that all develop from the non-aggression principle ("in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else.") I have never heard a compelling argument against the NAP, because it can be interpreted so broadly. Even some of the pro-no-asking-questions people on this thread are using the NAP, if unwittingly, to justify their positions.

View on HN

> in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else.

Thats not NAP if rights is anything but right to be not physically assulted.

NAP is basically: do no (physical) harm.

You not only allowed to be aggressive in other ways (such as economically) but its relied upon to tackle overly powerful entities (like megacorps).

I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP; and I fall on the other end of the scale where indirect damage through social/economic/environmental channels can be considered to infringe on liberty. Slander laws, noise ordinances, and non-localized environmental pollution all fall into this category and are eligible to be addressed through regulations which actually improve liberty. However, not being allowed to ask questions does not fall in this category in my opinion.

> I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP

Its simple by design. Its easiest to get universel consent.

> I fall on the other end of the scale where indirect damage through social/economic/environmental channels can be considered to infringe on liberty. Slander laws, noise ordinances, and non-localized environmental pollution all fall into this category and are eligible to be addressed through regulations which actually improve liberty. However, not being allowed to ask questions does not fall in this category in my opinion.

Sure you can create such contract. But it cannot be called NAP. Otherwise it will lead to miscommunication.

>Its simple by design. Its easiest to get universel consent.

And it falls down as soon as you want to enforce any other rules, like say, property rights.

If I reach to take your property and you slap my hand away, you have broken the NAP as you define it. Or you let me take it, but then expect the police or security company to punish me, they are breaking the NAP.

> And it falls down as soon as you want to enforce any other rules, like say, property rights.

You are right. For this desirable, two universal consents are needed: 1. NAP 2. Land Registry (eg blockchain based).

I claim that there will be 99%+ consent among inhabitants of a perticular region, which is good enough.

This have to be mentioned that no society (ancapism or socialism) can function without some minimum level of cooperation from all which is safe assumption because we are after all social animals. When this characterstic is not found, people migrate as they have been doing since ages.

What is your opinion on regulations that protect certain social classes. For example, should a business be allowed to refuse a LGBT customer their services?

Sole proprietor/family business/lemonade stand: yes, refuse whoever you want, even if you blatantly say "we don't serve gays."

Corporations/LLC's: these entities have obtained special government privileges (being detached from any personal liability/ ability to seize an owner's assets), and so it seems reasonable that they can be considered to 'meet some public standards' in exchange for these privileges. Anti-discrimination falls into that category in my opinion.

The argument I've heard against the former is that everyone ends up paying taxes and otherwise indirectly contributing to your business, so it isn't right to deny them access.

At the same time, though the business owner also contributed their own taxes to the situation.

I think I agree with your distinction and stance, with the idea being that the market will correct because it's shitty business to turn away a customer over an irrelevant detail like that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com