I made the switch to Anarcho-capitalism....what a trip!

[Occam's Banana]

Valid point. I get that. SCOTUS did indeed say there was a "right to privacy". Its just that they were wrong about that.

I know. That was, after all, my whole point ...

[Christian Liberty]

Politicians have appealed to Constitutionalism to justify their every heinous action. The most obvious is the War Between The States, but there are horrors to be found every generation.

That's not an argument (And I say that as someone who is only really a constitutionalist in a similar way that erowe is... namely, whenever the constitution says the Federal Government should not do something, an ancap will always agree with them, and the constitution does not actually require the government to do anything). People use all sorts of things to justify heinous actions. Bush used the Bible to justify the Iraq War. Hitler used Romans 13 to try to persuade Christians to obey him. Jim Wallace has said the government shutdown was "unbiblical." Obviously all of these things are ludicrous, so do we throw the Bible aside now?

Or do we get rid of churches just because of the Inquisition, or Michael Servetus?

Should we dismiss mathematics because sometimes math is used to make evil nuclear weapons?

I think you get my point. Your argument is no more valid than the above.

The Constitution clearly supports secession (10th amendment) and so the Southern side was the only side with any constitutional justification in the "war between the states." I don't see how this argument is good at all. WWII is a better argument, since it was both constitutional and evil, however, "constitutional" =/= "constitutionally required: ie. it is possible to be a constitutionalist and yet disagree with that war.

Don't misunderstand me: I agree with you that when it comes down to it, the constitution is an appeal to legal positivism, and thus not the best ideological basis from which to defend liberty. Most debates are against legal positivists who claim to be constitutionalists (However absurd the claim in a given situation) so the constitution, and a strict interpretation thereof, can be a sound debate tactic. But while we're hashing stuff out here, I agree with you that really, the NAP is a more philosophically sound argument. That doesn't make the constitution "bad", though, its simply an acknowledgement that the merits of appealing to the constitution is limited. I'd certainly prefer the AOC over the Constitution, but I'd prefer the Constitution over nothing [meaning "no document to limit the government", not "no State" which would indeed be preferable to either of the above], if only because it provides an avenue to argue with legal positivists that otherwise would not exist.

[Occam's Banana]

When you read NAP, think 'Non-aggression Against Property'.

I have have said absolutely NOTHING having ANYTHING whatsoever to do with NAP. How many times will this need to be pointed out to you?

The point I (very briefly) addressed transcends NAP (or any other socio-political dictum). Even if NAP is completely wrong and Rothbardianism is a steaming pool of utterly worthless drivel, what (very little) I have said up to this point is still operative and will apply to any valid alternative to NAP and/or Rothbardianism.

You were discussing the fundamental nature of things. The NAP is built upon very specific and very controversial definitions.

There you go with this NAP business, again. I was discussing the "fundamental nature of things." I was NOT discussing NAP. Your obsession with jousting with NAP appears to have rendered you unable to grasp that there might be any difference - or that an-caps are capable of having thoughts into wich NAP simply does not enter (because it is not sufficiently primary).

All parties must agree on those definitions for it to work.

Bull$#@!. A thing - be it a socio-political system, a physical machine, or whatever - is capable of working (or not) regardless of the universality of acceptance of any definitions that might be involved in its operation (even assuming that such universality of acceptance is actually possible in practice, which is realistically quite dubious). This is a necessary and inescapable consequence of objective reality and the primacy of existence.

This goes for NAP - and everything else of that nature. This is because reality and the "fundamental nature of things" are not and cannot be obliged or expected to respect whatever definitions happen to suit our purposes - no matter how many people do or don't adopt those definitions.

To reiterate my point (and the only argument I have made in this entire matter - despite your insistence on trying to shoehorn NAP into it), you cannot just define "property" any way you please and arrive at a system that can be expected to "work" merely because everyone else accepts & upholds your definition.

You and as arbitrarily many other people as you please may define "elephants" as "cats" - but good luck trying to get your "cats" to use the litter box. Likewise with your desire to define "personal information" as "property." (And since it apparently bears repeating: this has absolutely NOTHING to do with NAP!)

Yes, but believers in the NAP deny any arbitrariness in their thinking, as Occam's Banana just demonstrated.

That's pretty funny, given that (1) I have said absolutely nothing about or pertaining specifically to NAP, and (2) my entire point is against those who "deny the arbitrariness" of defining this, that or the other thing (such as "personal information") as being "property" because doing so might be advantageous for some laudable purpose.

Pray tell - just how does respect for objective reality, the primacy of existence, and the fact that definitions cannot be used to trump the "fundamental nature of things" (no matter how widely they may be adopted) amount to "arbitrariness in thinking?"

As far as I can see, it is you who is being arbitrary. The only thing that seems to have been "just demonstrated" is your ability to arbitrarily shoehorn your prefabricated anti-NAP arguments into places where they are simply not relevant.

This goes to the core of An-Cap thinking. Its not based on any true A priori ideas, like objectivisim or kantianism or utilitarianism for example. Its core principles are based in culture, with cultural assumptions filling in all the gaps.

Until these are acknowledged and addressed the theory won't move forward.

So let me get this straight: something like utilitarianism is "based on true [sic for truly ??] a priori ideas" and not on "culture, with cultural assumptions filling in all the gaps" ... while on the other hand, NAP (which, among other means, can be derived via "natural rights" or "argumentation ethics" - both of which are clearly a priori systems, regardless of whether you actually accept them as being correct or not) is just a culturally arbitrary ad hoc construction? SMH ...

[Christian Liberty]

Utilitarianism is more a rejection of ethics than an ethical system. I guess its kind of both,but I've always viewed it as "Immorality on steroids" more than anything else. I'd take a natural rights constitutionalist/minarchist over a "utilitarian" ancap in a heartbeat. Plus, its purely subjective. The utility monster also destroys any real intellectual basis for utilitarianism.

Rights are absolute, thus utilitarianism is wrong. The human conscience bears witness to the fact that utilitarianism is wrong.

[Ronin Truth]

Lew Rockwell Admits It

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/lew-rockwell/lew-rockwell-admits-it/
He’s an anarcho-capitalist.