-
Target has a right to defend himself. Target is also liable for any collateral damage. Generally he wouldnt be liable for punitive damages unless he was negligent in some way, over and above the necessary actions for self-defense. Bystander has a stronger claim for damages against Aggressor than he does against target. "Aggressor grabbed my table
-
A push is an aggressive act regardless of context, regardless of motives. Be careful not to jump definitions. Aggressive, in the way you use it, is not derived from Aggression as libertarians use the term for the NAP. I might aggressively ( making an all-out effort to win or succeed ) save someone's life without committing aggression, in the libertarian
-
as far as te push out of bus, it is ok to save someone's life like this but if the person feels like you did wrong then it is a matter of settling the issue They would have to prove you did them wrong. They can do this by jumping out in front of the next bus.
-
Bitcoin is not money; it is a public ledger system keeping track of who was deemed by whom to provide a good or service the latter person valued. If it ever gets to the point where any and all goods can exchange for it, it would indeed be money.
-
The hammer is the physical cause of the chair. But it doesen't make any sense to say the value of the chair causes the value of the hammer; all we can say is the value of the chair determines the value of the hammer. A distinction without a difference? Please define what you mean by cause and determine in the above.
-
As I understand NAP, pushing a person out of the way of a bus would in fact be a violation whereas letting them get hit would be an NAP-neutral act. Letting them get hit is NAP-neutral, but pushing them out of the way would be a violation. If they later say they preferred to get hit, they can jump right back out on the highway and do so. Otherwise,
-
I'll add that, while I think pushing a person out of the way of a bus would constitute aggression prima facie, I also think it's legitimate for the person who was pushed to forgive it ex post facto. It's not aggression, it's an act of saving the other person. Use the action axiom, means and ends. The end was to save the other person
-
accumultaed savings = accumulted interest
-
people don't want to spend their money now but in the future. This isn't precisely true. It's not that people do not want to spend their money now, it's that they discount the value of future goods. The interest rate helps to induce them to save because, though the future goods are discounted, you can buy more of them because of accumulated
-
The first half hour I read a couple chapters from my forthcoming novel. The next hour after that is a Q&A and discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOBoDdwFV4