No.100848
What point distinctively separates a duel from a physical altercation in AnCapistan? If someone waves a gun at you/calls you a faggot and you proceed to pull out your own gun and tell then to back off, is it self defense against an NAP violation or is it escalating the situation and providing consent to a fight? What if the whole neighborhood insists you agreed to a duel but you only did so because you were coerced into accepting it?
tl;dr- At what point does it stop being an NAP violation and start becoming you being a little bitch in a consensual beat down when someone riles you up/picks a fight with you?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100849
>>100848
Whichever point you want, le nap is just feeling, not something concrete like laws or biology.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100854
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100863
>>100848
>What point distinctively separates a duel from a physical altercation in AnCapistan?
Both parties must consent to a duel. Duels are usually done with some form of decorum but not necessarily
>If someone waves a gun at you/calls you a faggot
Which one? Those are two very different acts.
>What if the whole neighborhood insists you agreed to a duel but you only did so because you were coerced into accepting it?
Consent made under duress isn't really consent. I haven't "consented" to paying taxes, even though I do so in a peacable manner and haven't made attempts to gun down the tax men. However, coercion has a very specific definition–compelling someone to perform an action under the threat of violence. Social pressure, for instance, would not count as coercion, nor would any other voluntary action (e.g., if you don't agree to a duel I'll evict you).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100871
>>100863
>voluntary action
ackchyually Any action is by definition voluntary (although that by itself does not imply consent). The eviction example is clearly coercion though
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100874
>>100871
>The eviction example is clearly coercion though
No, it's not, not outside of socialist feels>reals la-la land. When you rent a home or otherwise occupy property which you do not own, you are there at the behest of the property owner. If the property owner objects to your presence at any time, for any reason, as the owner of the property he retains the right to evict you for trespassing. It doesn't matter if it's inconvenient for you or not–your presence on property you do not own is a privilege that can be revoked at any time.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100876
>>100854
Amazing argument, you sure proved me wrong. Truly your words are worth more than any logic or fact.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100877
>>100848
The NAP is bs, just gather you friends and kill him
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100879
>>100874
Funny you say that since it was implied in a different thread earlier this week that you can't let someone use something under contract and then complain when they break the contract on the object in question E.G. copyright.
Please, explain to me how one can rent a house but they can't rent a seed or shovel, etc.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100880
>>100874
When you rent a home you usually sign a contract, if you sign a shitty contract that says you need to duel the owner whenever requested or else you're evicted, then you're just an idiot. Of course the owner can just break the contract and do it anyways and pay the fine or whatever. Coercion doesn't necessarily imply aggression (as in unprovoked initiation of violence) though, therefore it's not inherently wrong since it can be used defensively as well.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100883
>>100879
>Funny you say that since it was implied in a different thread earlier this week that you can't let someone use something under contract and then complain when they break the contract on the object in question E.G. copyright.
Copyright is different because intellectual property doesn't even qualify as property. Do try to keep up.
>Please, explain to me how one can rent a house but they can't rent a seed or shovel, etc.
There's nothing stopping you from renting seeds or shovels, nor did anyone ever imply otherwise.
>>100880
Contracts can be broken at any time, and unless breaking the contract results in theft there's no penalty for doing so. There's no reason the landlord would pay a fine for kicking you out of his own property. There's no legal restriction which prevents the landlord from saying, "duel me or I evict you." The detrimental effect this would have on his reputation means there are other factors which would compel him not to do this, but legally nothing is stopping him.
>Coercion doesn't necessarily imply aggression
It literally does. Aggression is defined as the unprovoked initiation of either force, coercion, or fraud. But this question is irrelevant, since kicking someone out of your own property is not in any way coercive.
> it can be used defensively as well.
That much is correct. Any of the acts which are labeled as aggression may be used in self-defense without issue.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100886
>>100848
>What point distinctively separates a duel from a physical altercation in AnCapistan?
The same point at which an MMA bout turns into an actual physical fight.
>If someone waves a gun at you/calls you a faggot and you proceed to pull out your own gun and tell then to back off, is it self defense against an NAP violation or is it escalating the situation and providing consent to a fight?
Self defense. The thesis of "Aw you're just escalating the fight" is a retarded one, the other man pulled out the firearm and started threatening you, you returning the favor and fighting back is not 'escalating' anything. If anything, letting this retard walk around thinking he can just point a gun at anyone and get away with it is more of an escalation than anything else.
>What if the whole neighborhood insists you agreed to a duel but you only did so because you were coerced into accepting it?
What did you mean by this?
>tl;dr- At what point does it stop being an NAP violation and start becoming you being a little bitch in a consensual beat down when someone riles you up/picks a fight with you?
The moment you start threatening legal action for something that both of you agreed to in a contractual sense. Boxers, Mixed Martial Art experts all walk in their sport understanding that there's a very good chance that they'll be hit and potentially injured during a match. Day-to-day life has no such contract or obligation. If I'm walking around and suddenly some dude hits me and I decide hit back, this doesn't mean that I consent to some sort of fight or some sort of duel with this person. There's no such obligation, all that's happening here is that I'm defending myself from an assault that I didn't consent to at all, so if I were to pull out a gun and shoot him for physically assaulting me, I have every right to do so.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100888
>>100883
>Contracts can be broken at any time, and unless breaking the contract results in theft there's no penalty for doing so
Of course you can break a contract, but every contract should have break clause that applies to both parts, or else there's no reason for a contract to exist in the first place. The owner can just say in the contract that he can evict the renter whenever he wants for whatever reason, but I don't see why most people would actually sign that. If you need to evict the guy for something he fucked up himself then there's not really a problem there.
>aggression is defined as the unprovoked initiation of either force, coercion, or fraud
So if coercion is not unprovoked then it isn't aggression, which is what I said and you just agreed with that. Coercion is basically instigating someone to do something by threatening them in any way, it is a form of violence but it's not aggression if you're using it against a criminal, for example. But I guess we're just arguing semantics at this point
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100891
>>100888
>but every contract should have break clause that applies to both parts
Every contract can, but that doesn't mean every contract should. A contract between two individuals that trust each other won't have any kind of collateral, for instance–since the expected breach of contract is so low, the expected payoff from collateral would end up being higher than the transaction costs required to implement collateral–ergo no collateral clauses would be implemented. For a more pedestrian example, consider that not every marriage has a prenuptial agreement attached to it. Alternatively, you can have contracts in which only one party puts up collateral but not the other. Since we're on the subject of landlords and tenants, this relationship serves as a good example of this: the landlord will often demand a security deposit from his tenant, but the tenant asks for no collateral from the landlord. In this case, it's because the potential costs of a breach of contract are much higher when inflicted on the landlord, as he is the property-owner and faces high potential costs if his property is neglected or vandalized by the tenant. The tenant by contrast faces no long-term costs from a breach of contract by the landlord, as the tenant may always move out at his leisure and seek another landlord. As a result, there's only an incentive for the landlord to demand a security deposit.
>the owner can just say in the contract that he can evict the renter whenever he wants for whatever reason, but I don't see why most people would actually sign that.
Even if the contract doesn't say that, the owner reserves the right to evict the tenant whenever he wants, for whatever reason. It's his property, and he has absolute dominion over it, including who is and is not allowed in it. But, like you say, if the landlord evicts his tenants for arbitrary, unexplained reasons, then people wouldn't rent from him, so he has an incentive to act reasonably.
>Coercion is basically instigating someone to do something by threatening them in any way, it is a form of violence but it's not aggression if you're using it against a criminal, for example.
Yes, I'd agree with that. Where I don't agree is the notion that threatening to evict someone from rented property is a form of coercion, which I believe you were suggesting earlier.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100892
>>100891
A formal, explicit contract that doesn't have a break clause can't be legally valid since both parts need to be able to break it at any time, that's what I meant.
I see that you don't agree on the definition of coercion (I'd wager because the word has a negative conotation), but that's just what it is, just a tool. There's nothing ethically wrong with using coercion if you're not the aggressor, like there's nothing wrong with using violence against an attacker.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100898
>>100854
He's not wrong, though. If everyone else thinks the guy had it coming, it wasn't a violation of the NAP. If there's people who think you're the asshole of the situation, it was a violation of the NAP and you should watch out for people coming to settle the score.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100899
>>100898
Not if it is a lynch mob overreacting to lack of or inaccurate information
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100961
>>100898
At what point does an NAP violation expire? If you murder my grandpa, is murdering you 8 months later still a valid option?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100962
>>100879
>renting seeds and shovels
you could totally rent a shovel? the only thing stopping you from renting a seed is that its use destroys it, I guess you could theoretically rent it but if you ever planted or ate it your a vandal, so it would be nonseinsical for you to rent it or for anyone to rent it to you
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101053
>>100961
There's a pretty clear-cut difference between defending yourself from aggression in the present and initiating aggression against someone who has wronged you in the past. I'm not saying that vigilante justice is morally wrong, mind you, but it is a NAP violation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101054
A threat of violence is a NAP violation. Just like in the US right now, you have full authority to act first to shoot a thug pointing a gun at you. Also just like right now, an investigation would be held to determine if the force was justified. The difference is that the investigative body isn't a state monopoly.
>>100849
>>100877
>>100898
(You)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101068
>>101054
You're missing the deeper meaning. It's not about whether it is an NAP violation or not, but what variable allows someone to ignore the NAP violation. Clearly ignoring it implies either…
>A) The individual does not recognize it as an NAP violation
>B) The individual recognizes it as an NAP violation but allows it anyways
If A, one can ask "why is it not?" If B, the important question is which variable is making the individual ignore a clear violation of the NAP? Did the guy have it coming? Is it retribution? Is society filled with people who hate the NAP and don't follow it? (If the latter, they must have some system of morality/ethics otherwise society would cease to exist, but in AnCapistan, why WOULD they have a competing set of ethics/how did it survive to let it flourish in society while also allowing a flourishing society?)
These are the important questions, anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101080
>>100848
A duel implies both parties consented to the duel. Like in olden days, one man would challenge another man to a duel. If the other accepted than the duel is on. But if the other refused than the initiator cannot take further action. He gets the satisfaction of making the other man look like a coward, but at the end of the day no one gets killed or wounded.
If the duel is refused and the initiator gets butthurt and attacks the other man anyway, than he violates the NAP.
>what if he waves a gun in you face?
Than that can be perceived as a clear and present threat and violates the NAP. The only reason anyone should ever pull out a gun is if he intends to use it right then and there.
>what if he calls you a fag?
Than he calls you a fag. It may hurt your feelings for a bit, but I wouldn't call it an NAP violation. Sometimes you have to put your pride aside and be the bigger person in situations like that and walk away. If you want to make a duel out of it you can, but it makes you look petty.
I hope this helps.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101088
>>101053
why is vigilante justice a nap violation? is institutional justice a nap violation too then?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.