Comments on: 13. “Risking Aggression: Reply to Block”

By: Kris

Kris — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:20:03 +0000

In your coffin scenario, I think the risk of violating the NAP is very low. However, very low is not the same as zero. You can design scenarios where the risk is arbitrarily small, but as long as there are two people, you can create a set of circumstances that would lead to conflict.

For example, if scratching your nose shifted the weight of the coffin, which caused a splinter to break off and embed itself in someone’s skin. It is very, very unlikely, but not impossible.

As far as the Mises quote, it plainly says that there is uncertainty inherent in every action.

By: Arthur Krolman, CFA

Arthur Krolman, CFA — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:33:21 +0000

You say, “Every action involves
uncertainty and, therefore, some risk of violating the NAP.” (And then you strangely cite Mises — as supporting that statement?…which amazingly passed LP peer review??)

If trapped in my coffin (purchased from Costco), I scratch my chin before resuming scratching through the lid…what is the risk of violating NAP with these actions?

By: Kris

Kris — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:19:47 +0000

Thank you, Aubrey.

By: Kris

Kris — Sat, 22 May 2010 01:27:50 +0000

Thanks for pointing that out.

By: Aubrey Herbert

Aubrey Herbert — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:52:15 +0000

Ha, that was great. I laughed at some examples. Great work. Though the opening was a bit rough hehe.

By: Marcel Popescu

Marcel Popescu — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:53:09 +0000

Page 7, first row: “… against does mean that…” should be “… against does NOT mean that…”