Define "Aggression"
>>79285356
Stefan pls leave
>>79285755
This. Libtards, explain yourselves.
>>79285356
>see man choking to death
>save his life using heimlich maneuver
>he shoots me in self defense for violating the NAP
>such is life in the libertarian utopia
>>79286282
Pretty sure shooting someone for heimliching you doesnt count as self defense.
>rent my house to someone
>eventually refuses to pay
>refuses to leave also
>cant evict him without causing aggression
>>79286467
It says right there in OP pic that it doesn't matter if the aggression is beneficial
Nice try, kid
>>79286731
physical exertion =/= aggression
>>79285755
Causing physical damage or to induce pain
Stealing one's resources
>>79286731
NAP or no, a case like that will still get judged.
>>79285356
>Find a Flaw
The trigger crowd.
>>79286959
So it's OK to use pshyops?
>>79285356
NAP is defining rules to a game. Nobody who finds themselves the loser or likely loser of any game should play by the rules.
There is no NAP in nature - quite the opposite.
People are wild animals like lions and hyenas on the Discovery Channel. We steal each other's food, and there's nothing wrong with that.
>against victimless crime laws
So littering, making noises at 3 AM, getting wasted in places, etc, shouldn't be outlawed? In other words, does the NAP encourage nigger behavior?
>be farmer in libertarian utopia
>some guy decides to buy all the water in the area
>my crops dry out and my farm is now worthless
>have to make a living by renting my children to pedophiles
>oh well, at least we're free from government oppression
>>79285356
what happens when someone violates it?
>>79287572
How exactly does one buy "all the water in the area?" You recall the water cycle from school right?
Who sold the water and why didn't they raise their prices when they learned someone was intent on buying ALL the water?
Why did someone buy the water if not to sell to farmers?
>>79287960
Who are you to dictate who can buy water for whatever reason he wants? This is the free market in work you statist shill
>>79285755
violation of property rights
>>79285356
The flaw is that there will always be aggressive people
>>79285356
it applies to commies
>>79288286
He's not dictating anything, you retard. He's just saying your scenario is impossible to happen.
>>79285356
>>79285356
>>79288312
>property
>libertarian
nope
>>79287469
>making noises at 3 AM
Depends where you do it. Every land should be privatized, so the owner can ban making noises late. Just like home owners associations do now.
>getting wasted in places
same.
>littering
same.
What happens when someone invents an aggression to justify their own aggression as self-defence, or has their legitimate self-defence misinterpreted as an aggression?
>>79287572
>buy all water in the area
he can't do that without violating the NAP since the locals own the water
>communism could never work
>but everyone would abide the NAP
>>79288414
What are you talking about? All libertarianism is literally about is the defense of property rights.
>>79285356
We live in a country that is 10% dindu.
>>79288565
lol, what are private security agencies?
You guys are so dumb, just read some actual libertarian literature, so that you at least know what you're trying to criticize.
>>79288565
>fascism would work perfectly though
Joking aside, all radical ideologies are retarded and have never and will never work in the real world.
>aggression is inherently illegitimate (tautology)
>but, you can use aggression in self-defense or defending others
Nice nonsensical, self-defeating principle.
>>79288816
That's because the guy who wrote it is a retard.
Aggression is always illegitimate. Using physical force in self-defense or defending others is not aggression.
>>79288705
What stops the Private Security Agencies from going rouge and stealing or enslaving people.
>>79288565
I've never heard any serious AnCap assert that everyone would have to abide for NAP. Most advocate for privatization of defense in cases where individuals cannot adequately defend themselves alone, such as insurance companies doubling as police forces or third party arbitrators
People usually agree that initiation of force is wrong, especially in their daily lives. the NAP is simply applying that concept to the political sphere as well. Having two moral systems, one for individual interactions and one for group interactions leads to highly arbitrary outcomes. For example, at what point does a group become a nation and why are dissenting members considered part of it?
>>79286282
I still have those saved
>>79288816
If you're genuinely interested in learning, which I know you aren't, a good starting point would be Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics
>>79288971
Competition. If there's tens of security agencies they would have to all secretly collaborate to try to enslave their own customers. Which is just stupid, because you can make better money, simply by providing service they pay you for. Also there's lots of customers and very few people actually involved in providing security. So that makes it even dumber.
And btw if that did actually happen then we're just back to status quo, since that's exactly what modern governments are. So it won't get worse.
>>79288565
Sure, people might violate the NAP and attack/rob me. But then I have the right to defend myself and my property. Feel free to come at me my liberty hating friend.
>be libertarian police
>can't apprehend suspects because it would violate the NAP
>there are now 1000% more crime than in statist countries, but at least you don't have to pay taxes
>>79288536
They own it, so they can sell it.
This is a core principle of the free market
>>79285356
NAP is a load of shit perpetuated by the bourgeoisie to keep class cucks subservient to capitalism.
>>79288312
All property is theft.
>>79289249
You dumbass do realize that the PMC(it's basically) that would not enslave customers, but different people to use as forced labour to boost productivity, or harvest organs.
Look at organized crime for fuck sake, like drug cartels in Mexico. Do you really think they will not expand and grow with nor organized force to fight them?
>>79289331
If you're dumb enough to not secure water rights before you buy your farm, then you deserve to get fucked up.
Injustice that benefits me is superior to justice that doesn't.
>>79285356
That's not the non-aggression principle. The initiation of violence is what is prohibited.
If you initiate violence, you are estopped from complaining about having violence imposed on you.
>>79285356
Is great replacement considered agression ?
Is the fact that all the roads are full of circulation because of the euro soccer cup organized near my home against my will an agression ?
Is advertise an agression ?
Is EU an agression ?
Is life an agression ?
> Anarcho Capitalism is the same as libertarianism
Gorbachev, end this meme.
>>79286467
Squatting is theft, and thusly, forcefully removing an unpaid renter is not the initiation of force.
You guys are all too new to be posting.
>>79289203
Got any more of these?
Sounds like horse shit though.
NAP isn't about (((consent))), it's about not initiating violence. Performing CPR isn't initiating violence you fucking cretin.
>>79289685
>Performing CPR isn't initiating violence you fucking cretin.
See:
>>79285755
>>79289685
Funny thing, I've seen people sue other people for giving them CPR.
It's a whacky whacky world.
>>79285356
Is the NAP objective and universal
And how is someone obligated to follow it
>>79289451
>Look at organized crime for fuck sake, like drug cartels in Mexico
You do realize that Mexico states does exist, right? It seems quite inept at stoping the violence. In fact all civic servants there are bribed by gangs. That makes it so they actually have financial incentive in gangs existing. So your argument is essentially void.
>that would not enslave customers, but different people
Almost everyone would be a customer of some security agency.
>with nor organized force to fight them
PSA would be better organized than police force now is. All private enterprises work better than state owned ones.
>>79288705
Wowie that idea isn't retarded or anything, what could possibly go wrong???
>>79285356
What about people that ignore the NAP?
>>79289455
What if you're born into a libertarian society where water is already monopolised?
You might not even get a say in matters like that in a libertarian paradise
>>79289966
They're punished for violating the rights of others. What other answer did you expect?
If you defraud, steal, or hurt people, you deserve to be punished.
>>79287960
You buy the land further upstream that contains the river and build a fucking dam genius.
>hurr, the farmer still has the rain that falls on his land, that's obviously enough irrigation
>>79289966
>>79289773
If you don't, your head is gonna be blown off.
>>79289870
Exactly. What could possibly go wrong? Competition provides better product at better price. Market for security isn't an exception. Destroying state monopoly in this market is good for all law-abiding and peaceful people.
>>79290028
Libertarianism =/= voluntarism and the NAP, mongol.
also
>I should have the right to natural resources that other people own
>if they don't give it to me, it's immoral
kek
>>79290028
How the fuck can water get monopolized? You do realize that there's literally more water than land on this planet, right? Plus even on land, water literally falls of from sky for free. So you would have to own entire fucking planet to "monopolize water". That's not going to happen, you retard.
>>79290158
River is ownable too, you dumbass. Owning part of a river doesn't give you right to completely shut off stream downwards.
Plus you're so fucking dumb, have you ever seen a dam? You have to have an outlet from it, if the water just keeps coming in, it's gonna destroy your dam, you stupid fuck.
>>79290070
So it's like what we have now but liberals with autism had to give it a special name so that they appear philosophical about their shit?
>>79290163
>If you don't, your head is gonna be blown off.
By whom?
>>79285356
I have one. Who is going to enforce it?
I swear some ancaps sound like ancoms in the idea of "unicorns will protect us". But really, who the fuck is going to enforce that "NAP" in an anarchic community?
>>79289753
Straight from google:
feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.
>>79285356
seems pretty gay t bh famalamala
>>79290565
>anarcho capitalism
>liberal
literally what are you talking about?
>like what we have now
Are you 16, or just retarded?
>>79290574
If someone attacks me, I'll defend myself. If someone tries to rob me, I'll stop them. That's all it means.
>>79290639
So people in a libertarian society are morally forbidden from feeling angry in response to hostile behaviour?
Do you even read your posts before you make them?
>>79290574
A fucking private security agencies, your answer was already answered here.
You all are just a bunch of uneducated retards here. JUST READ THE FUCKING BOOKS, or articles even. ALL THE DUMB QUESTIONS YOU ASK HERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES, JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT.
>>79289769
I can only hope that is due to overly hawkish lawyers, or that they lost their lawsuit, and wish them more success in their next attempt.
>>79285356
When you live in an environment where others don't adhere to it you are constantly playing defense. You have to let the mountainlion attack you first, otherwise you'd be violating the non-aggression principle.
The NAP is great in a homogenous, white society, where people share your values, but not in a society filled with assault-humanoids that need to be kept at bay. The same goes for christianity. Don't turn the other cheek when someone is eating your face.
>>79290542
Then he brought the river as well.
>muh outlet
Now you are just retardedly clutching at straws, guess what if you store a fuckton of water upstream there is less water down stream, farm land drying up is something that has happened after dam building, read a fucking book nigger.
>>79290733
Right. If you don't want to do it yourself, you pay someone for security.
It's very simple, but like the "muh roads" argument people hammer on the minutiae.
>>79285356
Other people have no qualms with violating the NAP to advance their own interests, which may leave you (or your country) in a weaker position, allowing them to continue violating the NAP.
>>79290707
>Are you 16, or just retarded?
You're getting punished as it is if you "defraud, steal, or hurt people". What's so revolutionary about this that it deserves a thread?
>>79290765
What about people that can't affort private security agencies?
>>79290982
Defend themselves
Charities that defend the vulnerable
Plus if they're poor, they won't have much worth stealing so it'll be easy to defend them.
>>79285356
>aggression is illegitimate
>no matter if the results are beneficial
Yeah, that's irrational and borders on idolatry of principle.
>>79290765
So, basically, i will be force to pay to have the privilege to live without fear. Which will result in everyone becoming money cockslaves so that they can walk the streets with some sense of security.
And even if i pay the "private security force" gang, if another one is stronger, it could just as well go all gang wars on mine. Then they take over it. Then i have to pay them. Then they get stronger, gain monopoly on "securing", and i become their slave instead of the government.
Seriously, a non governmental police agency is just a glorified gang. And before you go crazy once more, i'm a minarchist. No government will never work, small government is fine.
>>79291035
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqlVL26jrCA
Private defence forces already exist, doing jobs that the police refuse to do. Plus they voluntarily protect those that can't afford it.
>>79290265
>Libertarianism =/= voluntarism and the NAP, mongol.
Quite right, libertarian socialism is the only real form of libertarianism.
>>79285356
self-defense is a slippery slope that always leads to totalitarianism and anarchy.
Pacifism must be self enforced, use of violence or force leads to explusion, just like the used to do it in Atlantis.
>>79291100
>So, basically, i will be force to pay to have the privilege to live without fear.
But anon, you just described the current world.
>>79290893
at no point did you make the case for statism
in fact your argument that mountainlions could get ahold of govt power and commit far worse than they ever could privately, is a very strong point in favor of the NAP
>>79290893
No, those are all strawman arguments. Threat of force is violence. You can respond. Also, it only applies to human-human interaction.
>>79290893
>The NAP is great in a homogenous, white society, where people share your values, but not in a society filled with assault-humanoids that need to be kept at bay.
This is one of the many reasons we need to create said homogeneous society. The immorality of others is no reason to stop pursuing morality.
>>79290947
Governments are coercive by nature. Taxation is theft, licenses are theft, telling nonviolent people want they can or can't do on/with their property is immoral. To say that "immorality is okay as long as it's the government" makes you a hypocrite... and hence, voluntarism is the only political system that isn't hypocritical.
>>79290893
>The NAP is great in a homogenous, white society, where people share your values, but not in a society filled with assault-humanoids that need to be kept at bay.
Well, that's true, that only high IQ societies can be successful libertarian societies. That's quite obvious, because only high IQ societies can be successful at all. So you're making exactly no point at all.
Feasible threat of using physical force against you is also aggression. So you can kill the aggressor before he physically touches you. And you can kill mountain lion always, because animals don't have rights at all.
>>79290922
and then what?
you act like the market stops and thats it the book ends
>>79291176
No. As much as you and me hate the police, we both know that it would intervene in the case of an emergency as best as they can, unless big money is in the game. But you will never be against a "big money guy".
>>79291200
How does "creating a homogeneous society" work when you on the other hand are planning to take away the means to create a homogeneous society?
After all
>telling nonviolent people want they can or can't do on/with their property is immoral
>>79291362
If I don't pay tax then I have to live in fear.
>>79291545
>take away the means to create a homogenous society
I hope you don't mean to imply people can only be loyal to their race when it's with the threat of violence as motivation.
Look at post-war America.
>>79285356
>No Defense of Other clause.
Weak.
>>79290639
Of course not.
Keywords: Anger resulting in violence.
People would need to learn to control their feelings.
Also realise that when people initiate violence against you then the violence is already INITIATED and so self defense becomes morally acceptable.
>>79291690
Defending somebody from violence doesn't violate the NAP.
>>79291574
Some minimal amount of tax is always fine, because someone has been appointed a leader of your community and they need funds to spend on your security and justice. So, *trigger warning*, not all tax is theft.
>>79291646
But what about the ones that don't? The ones that have ulterior motifs to import nonwhites?
Say George Soros buys up half a state and then imports millions of niggers - isn't he allowed to do so on his own property? That would mean the end of your homogeneous society.
It really is an either-or thing.
>Look at post-war America.
I'd rather look at what it led to.
>>79291933
Forcefully taking something from someone without their consent is always theft, regardless of who does it.
>justice
>funded with stolen money
Do you not see the hypocrisy?
>>79291986
While that'd be terrible, it wouldn't become an issue in a voluntarist society until they inevitably started initiating force. At that point, it's fair game to remove watermelon.
So, consider that what you're talking about is more an impediment to achieving said society, but not an argument against the ideology itself.
>>79292148
No, i do not see it. When you live in a community of humans, you have responsibilities along with privileges. It is not stealing, it is "agreeing to the terms of that community" for the well being of yours and those around you, as your money will be directly and -only- going towards the community's protection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A
>>79292350
>agreeing to the terms of that community
Except that only actually applies to the people who consent(ed). If 51% of the population decides they're going to have taxes, the other 49% never consented, not to mention subsequent generations being born there.
Let's say I live on a farm and use literally no public services. I have my own well, grow food, and make my own tools. What gives the community the right to take my money or property? How can you possibly argue that it isn't theft? If I don't pay taxes, don't show up for the subsequent court dates, and if I resist the police that eventually try to arrest me, I'll be killed.
And this is the society you believe to be moral.
>>79291986
How does that end homogeneous society? The imported black live on his property, they can't enter yours. So you essentially have two separate countries, one with the previous white society, the other is the property of George Soros with all the niggers in it.
>>79292350
That argument of yours can as well be used for supporting full-blown socialism. Also "terms of community" is essentially social contract argument which was debunked so many times it's not even funny.
>>79292148
>it wouldn't become an issue in a voluntarist society until they inevitably started initiating force. At that point, it's fair game to remove watermelon.
What if you can't though? What's stopping rich-guy Soros from buying some good funz and sending those millions of niggers into unprepared neighborhoods? Or what's stopping him from spreading liberalism that leads to people housing the niggers themselves?
I don't want to achieve such a society because we're already living it. And it sucks.
There are a lot of people like Soros that deserve to be dragged into the streets and shot - and that's not possible with the NAP.
>>79292712
>How does that end homogeneous society? The imported black live on his property, they can't enter yours.
Society is a bit bigger than just your own yard, buddy.
>>79292828
If you want to live in a homogeneous white society, then you should create such society with like minded people. You all buy land and then enter into contract, that says you can't invite niggers there nor sell your land to anyone that would do so.
The only reason it doesn't happen already is that state would throw you in prison if you did such thing for "discrimination".
>>79292828
>we are already living in a voluntarist society
I think you're drunk and confused, brother. You don't seem like a bad guy, but I can't understand the points you try to make, at all.
>There are a lot of people like Soros that deserve to be dragged into the streets and shot - and that's not possible with the NAP.
You don't think Soros has initiated enough force to merit being punished with death? He's responsible for a lot of the problems with niggers we're talking about in the first place. Any logical voluntarist would pull the trigger, themselves.
>>79293061
And that's why we need to privatize everything. Then society will indeed be "just our own yards"
The non-aggression principle cannot be sustained without aggression.
Checkmate atheists
>>79291035
>>79290765
So replace Army, Police and Government with Private and you get An Cap.
It's really just that, feudalism 2.0 Retard Bugaloo.
>>79290163
So might makes right then, to bad the minority's and degenerate people won't follow it, but I love the idea of easy to start businesses part of it
>>79288971
>What stops the Private Security Agencies from going rouge and stealing or enslaving people.
The NAP of course. :^)
>>79293209
Responding to aggression with violence isn't the initiation of force, nip.
>>79293077
What country has ever been made because individuals "bought" land?
Your utopia doesn't work in the real world, I'm sorry.
>>79293106
>You don't think Soros has initiated enough force to merit being punished with death?
Not against me personally. Why should I have to wait for him until it harms me personally (and even the it's most likely one of his shitskinned pets and not him)?
>He's responsible for a lot of the problems with niggers we're talking about in the first place.
It's those niggers breaking the NAP, not him.
>Any logical voluntarist would pull the trigger, themselves.
And thus violating the NAP against poor Georgie.
>>79293201
How are you going to privatize everything?
Sellling drugs to kindergarden prostitues doesnt violate the NAP.Prove me wrong
>this is what ancaps actually believe
How do you enforce the law in acapistan? How would competing security organizations actually work and do a better job than the state? What about prisons?
>>79293279
No, it's not "might makes right". You can't commit aggression against others.
>>79293266
>feudalism 2.0
Feudalism was based significantly on the statist power. The land was given to future landlords by the king (the state).
So no, it wouldn't be feudalism. It would be capitalism.
>>79293593
>>79293696
>No, it's not "might makes right". You can't commit aggression against others.
But you can, that's what you autists don't understand.
>>79293655
Monarchy is the logical conclusion of capitalism.Prove me wrong.
>>79293523
I don't think you understand what the NAP actually is.
Let's say I witness someone else being murdered. It's completely clear, no doubt about what happened. I am well within my rights to kill the murderer. Similar situation with Soros. Fraud is still the initiation of force, not even considering all the deaths he's responsible for.
>be ancap
>neighbor's 5-year-old wanders into my private property to retrieve his soccer ball, thus trespassing and violating my property rights
>kill him
>parents come after me for revenge
>my private security team kills them in self-defense
Just another day in ancap paradise
>Wake up in ancap town
>Buy 2000 puppies
>Create a puppy hunting club
>With the money of hunting club I buy all the specimens of an endager specimen
>Kill them all
>Go to the baby market
>Buy 3000 of them
>Prostitute them,as they are my property
>With this money buy recreational nukes
>Threaten the world to nuke it if they dont creaate a unicorn
>After 6 months...
>tfw you have a unicorn
>>79294252
>baby
>property
Shitpost harder.
>>79294252
Slavery and nuking is initiation of force, though
>>79293523
>What country has ever been made because individuals "bought" land?
You don't have to buy it, you just have to make it your own in a rightful way. Now it means buying for the most part. But in the past you could homestead it if it had no legitimate owner. That's how most countries were made.
>How are you going to privatize everything?
By giving it back to people by whose taxes it was build. So roads for example would be given to locals living near those roads.
Things which ownership is hard to infer in this way would just be sold to the highest bidder.
>>79293593
Children have rights but don't have full ability to make all legal actions. They can't rightfully prostitute themselves. Well, at least if you're talking about small children. I believe 15 year old or so should absolutely have the right to sell their bodies, even if it's obviously degenerate.
>>79293655
That's nice.
>>79293677
How do you make bread? How would competing bakeries actually work and do a better job than the state? What about mills?
>>79294035
>Similar situation with Soros.
But it's not since the stuff he's doing usually isn't as clear as witnessing someone being murdered.
Most people are too apathetic to know he's the one importing millions of niggers and handing them guns, they'll simply complain about the niggers or even more retardedly about the guns.
Just like it is today.
I understand the NAP very well. It's some autists' fantasies that once you magically implement it it magically prevents bad stuff from happening or magically granting you ultimate powers so that WHEN the bad stuff happens you can immediately defend against it.
The reality is, there's no reason you have to wait for the ants to come into your house before you kill them. It's stupid to do so.
Just go outside and destroy the ant hill.
There are certain cases where it's obvious that in the future, one group is going to be a threat to another. If that's the case, it's also obvious that you should stamp that group out while they're weak.
>All these mental gymnastics by right wing cucks trying to justify their bad political decisions
kek, you still have hope to be saved guys, just come to ANCAP
>>79294432
If we were talking about a less clear case, I'd agree. At this point, I think anyone that doesn't understand Soros' guilt is probably not relevant to a discussion about what is more or less a utopia, though.
I respect your opinion.
>>79294338
What were you saying?
>>79294417
>You don't have to buy it, you just have to make it your own in a rightful way.
Why in a rightful way? What's stopping me from killing you and your family in your ancap utopia and then bribing the private security firm (if you could afford one in the first place)?
>By giving it back to people by whose taxes it was build
What makes you think the people that currently own it would be willig to give it back to those people?
Why does your scenario rely so much on something fantastic to happen?
>>79294432
Are preventive measures allowed in the NAP? I know I can't shoot anybody, but I can shoot someone threatening me with a knife. Can I shoot someone who intents to threaten me with a knife?
>>79294398
>Slavery
Rothbard considers babies property,and if you dont use the nukes you arent agressing on someone,just threatening them
>>79294573
>I respect your opinion.
That's fine, I respect yours as well simply because of how easy it'd be to create my fascist wonderland if you ever get to implement your fantasies. Good luck.
>>79285356
it makes white countries nonwhite, after which they create socialism
any system that doesn't make countries white is flawed to the point of irrelevancy
any system that doesn't put making your country as white as possible at its centre is flawed
>>79290070
but by punishing said offender you are violating their rights
>>79294432
You're the autist here. You treat NAP completely abstractly without considering how actual society implementing it would look like. And then you pose ridiculous questions and scenarios that would never happen in such society as your arguments against it.
>>79294694
Sounds a lot like thought crime. Good luck proving that you didn't violate the NAP.
I think people like Soros could afford a pretty neat private security firm who'd enforce it.
>Live in Libertariantopia
>A private security firm demands $500 a month for "protection"
>Oh ok
>A second private security firm demands $1000 a month for "protection"
>Refuse
>They rape my wife (how would you even get married in Libertariantopia anyway?)
>Too powerful for my cheap security firm to punish them
>Begrudgingly pay the rapist firm for "protection"
Congratulations; a State has been created. So, what's the point?
>>79294039
As above how are the 5yos' s actions violence?
We could talk about how minors are the jurisdiction of their parents or a a about proportional response.
>>79294417
Would the profit motive and competition be enough for law enforcement? Like why not pay some mercenaries to kill someone or damage their property?
How do you bring someone to justice? Someone robs me and i am dirt poor?
Any books or whatever media that explain a private system of law enforcement and justice?
>>79294831
>And then you pose ridiculous questions and scenarios that would never happen in such society as your arguments against it.
Killing people and taking their stuff really isn't that ridiculous. It happened throughout history and still happens today.
It's ridiculous to assume that'd stop because of your magically implemented magic NAP.
>>79294898
>how would you even get married in Libertariantopia anyway?
By the church?I mean, civl marriage is pretty new you know
>>79295040
I'm an atheist. There doesn't seem to be much of a point in getting married without the State.
>>79294898
>the "libertarian means anarchist" meme
A libertarian government would still have a police force and laws against extortion and rape, you retard.
>>79295124
If you are an atheist,you are a retard for marrying.It is basically masochism,with the current law
>>79294613
>slavery
>voluntary
>because one kike said so
>ignore that it directly violates what the NAP says, it's totally kosher goy!
Not an argument.
>>79294743
Welp, nevermind that, then.
>when another pollack invalidates an entire discussion to get the last word in
>>79285356
>Raise a few generations of people who are not aggressive, also known as beta pussies
>Aggressive people come take your inheritance
t. Faggots
>>79287103
This, also peace makes people weak because war is the natural way of limiting the breeding of the genetically inferior
>tfw I am legitimized to not feed a baby that I just bought in the market place because it doesnt violate the NAP
>>79294875
Well, I can just put a knife in his hand. I can forge some evidence. I mean, I might be a charismatic leader that wants to remove all the bad people of this free society. (/:- =)
>>79295298
>a police force
>funded by taxation = theft
Sounds like a violation of the NAP to me
>>79295347
That kike basically developed all the ethics of the NAP m8.
>>79294615
>and then bribing the private security firm (if you could afford one in the first place)?
What's stoping you from doing so now?
Bribing a police officer is actually a lot easier than bribing a private firm because of trust issues.
If you bribe a police officer and it gets found out, then what happens? Nothing. Maybe the guy goes to jail. That's it.
If a private security firm gets found out, all its customers will be obviously outraged, because it means they can be betrayed next. So everyone changes their security provider and the firm goes out of business. That's why it's way less likely to happen in ancap society.
The point is that world isn't ideal, but it's better when things work, and they work better when they're private.
>What makes you think the people that currently own it would be willig to give it back to those people?
What are you talking about, you moron? The only property that will be privatized, by definition belongs now to the government. That's what privatization means. Are you like 12 and don't actually understand words you're using?
>>79294694
If it's a real threat, then obviously yes. So if someone comes to you with a gun and says, that if you don't pay him some money, he's gonna shoot you, then obviously you and observers of this situation can kill him.
As for "intent", how do you know he intents to do this? Is he making preparations? Did you uncover his plans for this? If yes, then sure you can stop him.
>>79295347
From your pick,a baby that comes out of a woman's vagina is his property.You shot yourself in the foot with that pic
>>79295466
They'll find it like the military: with donations and bake sales.
>>79294709
You're not correct. Rothbard didn't consider babies as property, he just phrased it clumsily.
All he advocated was that THE RIGHT TO CHILD CUSTODY is sellable. Not the child itself.
Besides Rothbard wasn't all knowing. He made mistakes too. He changed his mind a few times after hearing rational arguments against his positions. So you don't have to agree with him in everything to consider yourself libertarian.
>>79295443
Then why lie to yourself as if you're this NAP person when you're clearly not?
>>79295442
>slavery
>not violating the NAP
>>79295531
That has no bearing on what the NAP actually is, and you're an idiot if you believe otherwise.
Regardless, even if you want to be an autist and call it something else, what we're talking about has nothing to do with what you're shitposting about. But, since voluntarism is actually morally and logically consistent, statists have to try to say it's something that it isn't to even argue 'against' it.
Feels good being the only non-hypocritical ideology.
>>79295675
Why would the woman's body take precedence over the child's?
Did you even read the left side of the picture -- the important part?
>>79295564
>What's stoping you from doing so now?
Them receiving a pretty nice paycheck from the government that's financed via theft :^)
>The point is that world isn't ideal, but it's better when things work, and they work better when they're private.
Then why is there no successful ancap country on this planet?
>What are you talking about, you moron? The only property that will be privatized, by definition belongs now to the government.
Why would the government give it back?
>>79295442
QUOTE MINE
U
O
T
E
M
I
N
E
>>79295564
>>79295740
Well, I may want to become a fascist dictator. I just need to use the political system or in this case the NAP to gain the power I want.
>>79294928
Machinery of freedom by David Freedom for a start.
>>79295298
Libertarian means anarchism. The only reason you have classical liberals calling themselves libertarians in US is because the word liberal got stolen there by socialists.
>>79295763
Buying a baby is not slavery.
An dstarving a baby to death doesnt violate the NAP.
>That has no bearing on what the NAP actually is,
It does,when he basically created the thing.
>what we're talking about has nothing to do with what you're shitposting about
Yes it does,is a pretty dark area of the NAP
>But, since voluntarism is actually morally and logically consistent
And you called me an autist?
>statists have to try to say it's something that it isn't to even argue 'against' it.
By the very definition of the NAP I have the right to not feed a baby.It is a fact
>Feels good being the only non-hypocritical ideology.
>I am not hypocrital,when I ignore part of the moral subject.
>Feels good
>>79296079
So not really any different from what I said here >>79294743
We seem to share the same ideals, maybe we should join up to achieve our goals? I'm fine with just being the right hand to my Führer :^)
Reading this thread I haven't seen one actual good argumenet against the NAP.
>>79288568
That's korwin's libertarian capitalism / voluntaryism. There's also true libertarianism - anarchism or libertarian socialism.
>>79296279
>Buying a baby is not slavery.
>>79296279
>By the very definition of the NAP I have the right to not feed a baby.It is a fact
It's not a fact. Rothbard was wrong here. Creating a child does create positive obligations towards it. Kinsella and others wrote about it for some years now. And it slowly becomes the main position among libertarians right now.
>>79296641
Socialism by definition means use of statist force. If you talk with all those self proclaimed "libertarian socialist" you quickly notice they're just socialists, nothing libertarian about them.
And Korwin isn't a libertarian. He's a classical liberal.
>>79296822
>positive obligations
Doesnt this contradict the liberal(libertarian for americans) point of view of liberty.
literally the moral stance of NEETS and lazy niggers
>>79296741
What do you think that adoption is?To adopt a kid,people usually have to pay money.
>>79296321
I'm already starting a database with dangerous people, facebook makes it really easy to track down socialists and antifa-ggots. I believe that the left and the right knows that this or the next generation is a bunch of weak maggots. A totalitarian regime is inevitable. I will go full Pinochet to save us from socialism. having some sleepers all over Europe will certainly help ^^
>>79297061
You're equating what is done currently with what voluntarism stands for, which doesn't make any sense.
>>79297080
Thank you based Führer.
If ancaps ever get their way we need to immediately create a Ge(heime)Si(cherheits)Ag(entur) to help people protect themselves against such NAP violators :^)
>>79296987
Not necessarily. Positive obligations and rights can arise in a libertarian system if they're the result of voluntary actions.
Creating a child is a physical result of your voluntary choice to have sex. Your choices have consequences and you are obviously responsible for them.
Not all contracts have to be signed. If you go to a shop, take some item, go to cashier and pay for it, it's obvious you bought this item, even though nothing was signed.
If your dog goes and shits on the land of your neighbor, you have the obligation to satisfy his damages.
>>79297209
>what voluntarism stands for
So by your autistic views,babies should consent to be fed or clothe? As babies,really never agree to be adopted or to be taken care.
>>79285356
>tfw your wife can consent to fucking jamal next door, and you have to respect the non aggression principle.
>>79296641
>true libertarianism - anarchism
>>79297479
>giving infants food and clothing is the initiation of force
What are you even talking about? If I find an unconscious man and nurse him back to health, I haven't violated the NAP. If I feed and clothe my child, I haven't violated the NAP.
>>79297758
>I'm libertarian, and I support the right to have money taken against your will, by the government, to do things you don't agree with
much liberty, wow
>>79297471
>Positive obligations and rights can arise in a libertarian system if they're the result of voluntary actions
How? It may be a moral obligation for you,but going strictly by negative rights it isn't.
>Creating a child is a physical result of your voluntary choice to have sex. Your choices have consequences and you are obviously responsible for them.
But those consequences are usually a result of enforcement not from voluntary action.
>If your dog goes and shits on the land of your neighbor, you have the obligation to satisfy his damages.
Polluting is an act of agression,not feeding a baby isn't.
>>79297637
Wouldn't you just divorce her?
>>79297784
>If I find an unconscious man and nurse him back to health,
It is not a voluntary agreement,which is the point of voluntarism.
>>79297344
The filthy violators must be exterminated! Every household should pay money yearly for the GeSiAg. Anyone choosing not to pay is of course a violator sympathizer and an enemy of the NAP! The GeSiAg is actively trying to keep a certain region in the middle of Europe free from violators, with an intent of expansion in near future. :))))
>>79297964
It'd only be an initiation of force if I tried to charge him or otherwise get something for it.
You're misunderstanding, which was clear from the start. Looking at someone or talking to them doesn't violate the NAP. Offering them something for free doesn't violate the NAP.
Do you understand what force and aggression mean, in this context?
>>79289203
Seriously?
Are you afraid to be set free or something?
>>79297968
Always fascinating that statists' biggest fear about anarcho-capitalism is that we could go back to statism.
>>79298118
>It'd only be an initiation of force if I tried to charge him or otherwise get something for it.
So beating someone for free is not an initiation of force to you? Your ways of classification are retarded m8
>>79298190
Sustainability is a big issue m8.
>>79297637
>my wife can make her own decisions and exercise liberty how horrible
and this is why you're single senpai
>>79291200
>licensing is theft
What fresh hell is this?
>>79298256
You classify beating someone and nursing an unconscious person back to health as similar acts? Nursing isn't force, beating is.
>>79298348
Stealing money to 'allow' someone to exercise a right is definitely theft, yes.
>>79298190
What fear? It'd be a great opportunity.
>>79285356
Simple, "I disagree". Look at that, suddenly I'm able to use aggression without reason.
>>79297879
You didn't adress my point about buying stuff. And you're missing the point about my second example. It wasn't about polluting, because you indeed weren't polluting at all. It was your action of buying a dog and not closing it down properly in a cage or in home that resulted in that poo on your neighbor's grass.
So positive obligations can arise as a consequences of your voluntary actions. Having voluntary sex which results in creating a child is a good example of such situation.
>>79298444
>Nursing isn't force
Yes it is.You usually have to use neddles and the like for nursing.Those things are kinds of agression
>>79289331
In a society of free people who are justified in killing you for any violent act you commit, why would you risk committing a criminal act?
As a criminal in an AnCap society, any member of society is your enemy, not just the police.
>>79298560
>giving a dying person an IV to save their life, and not charging them for it, is force
Property is aggression.
>>79298190
>humans spend thousands of years trying to improve the concept of a state
>autists think "cmon guys the worst that can happen is you'll have to start all over" is a compelling point
>>79298444
If people are going to be behind the windshields of trucks or fucking aircraft, they need to be certified.
I'll make an attempt at a serious argument
The NAP is self serving and not a legitimate (((moral stance))). They don't wanna pay taxes so they come up with an "argument" that justifies their goal.
This is evident in the "aggressions" that Libertarians seek to eliminate via the NAP. In OP's picture they list "victimless crimes, taxation and military drafts".
The policies that the NAP seeks to eliminate are those that punish Freeloaders, people that benefit from the system but don't want to contribute to it. This is an inherently illegitimate stance to take. If you're benefitting from something without contributing, it's stealing, it's enslaving the people that contributed.
That freeloading is itself a transgression and society has every right to use aggression to stop it.
>>79298541
>Having voluntary sex which results in creating a child is a good example of such situation
But why do positive oligations appear because of sex? I really dont get it.The only consequences for not raising a child,would be violent enforcement.
>>79298711
This is what statists actually believe. "Improving" the concept of a state. Good one, m8.
Property is theft you retards
>>79298656
Yes it is.Implying that force is inherintly bad is pure autism,which is the whole basis of what you defend
>>79298801
And it HAS to be by a government that forces them to pay to do it, right?
>>79293696
Who says
>>79285356
You have to live around niggers
>>79285356
Niggers
>>79298946
What do you define 'force' as?
Why?
>>79290922
Do you know how many dams are on the Columbia River? It's still flowing just fine.
Also if some company did shut off some whole river for themselves, they will have to deal with backlash from a community of people who regard them as an asshole.
>>79285755
The invasion of the physical integrity of another person's property.
>>79298955
Your right, may as well just let any retard or actual child on freeways or fly through cities. We'll just punish them as they come, assuming there's anything left in the wreckage.
>>79298711
>hundreds of thousands of year of governments
>literally all of them shit
>"lol fucking ancaps obviously we're so close to getting it right"
>>79298866
>modern governments are literally no better than feudalism
Maybe in a 3rd world shithole like Poland. Over in real countries I think everyone can agree things have improved
>>79298190
read >>79298711
>>79298866
I haven't heard any argument why people wouldn't just form an alliance to take over control again. "Everyone will just be a good person" is the same logic socialists and communists use over and over again and every regime ends up in a total failure.
>>79299230
Or, y'know, realize that if roads and air regulations were privatized, that people would be able to do the same thing without being extorted at gunpoint by the government.
To say "people cannot travel safely by vehicle without a government" is a logical fallacy.
>>79299157
>force
strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence,
Nursing requires the use of violance in your case
>>79286467
That house is your property. If he's violating your property then you have the right to defend your property. He's violating the NAP by not leaving in the first place, you're defending yourself.
>>79298832
>The only consequences for not raising a child,would be violent enforcement.
What do you mean by "violent enforcement"? I'm not sure whether you're not wording correctly what you mean or I am just not understanding.
>But why do positive oligations appear because of sex?
Because by doing that you're creating a new child. This child has rights. It obviously wasn't asked whether it wants to start existing in this world. As it is you who forced this on the child you're responsible for its well being.
It's like if you invited someone to your house for a weeked and then decided to shoot him because he was trespassing. You can't do that. By inviting him you took on yourself positive obligation to let him be in your house for the invitation period (and so he has positive right to be in your house).
Positive rights can arise as consequences of free choices of peoples.
>>79299297
Actually, if you dwelve deeper, you would see that monarchy is a much more sustainable and effective form of statism than democracy
>https://mises.org/library/aristocracy-monarchy-democracy
Its a short read, 2 hours
>>79298720
>implying AnCaps would have means to defend themselves
>>79298720
Now give that man with a house a proper rifle and we'd see how he'd manage the bandits, hm?
Any serious property owner in an-cap land would possess adequate means to defend their property from banditry.
>>79299429
>violent enforcement
Enforcing a punishment by force
>Because by doing that you're creating a new child.
By using a car you creatig pollution,does that mean that I have to deal with that polution myself?
>This child has rights
Yes,by your standards just negative ones.
> It obviously wasn't asked whether it wants to start existing in this world
Didnt do I.Does that mean that my family have to take care of me forever?
>It's like if you invited someone to your house for a weeked and then decided to shoot him because he was trespassing. You can't do that. By inviting him you took on yourself positive obligation to let him be in your house for the invitation period (and so he has positive right to be in your house).
Nothing to do with this.
>>79299405
Good luck getting him out without either damaging your property or getting killed though.
You cannot truly follow the NAP unless you go vegan, as your choice to eat meat harms other humans
>>79299297
Things have improved as a consequence of private actions made by individuals. States are becoming just more and more oppressive. Not a single king in the middle ages would be able to stay alive for just a week if he tried to force on people the taxes that we have today.
>>79299393
Howso?
>>79299727
>force
You know the NAP only deals with the INITIATION of force, right, dingus? Punishing someone who violated the NAP isn't a violation of the NAP in and of itself. Retaliatory force is completely different.
>>79299429
That's why private would be useful.
Yes, private courtrooms.
>>79299817
Indirect consequences aren't coercion.
If I fart and my neighbor smells the fart downwind and pukes, I have not violated the NAP.
>>79299706
>Now give that man with a house a proper rifle and we'd see how he'd manage the bandits, hm?
Is he going to live in his house indefinitely? Never going to sleep, never going to work, never not watching?
>Any serious property owner in an-cap land would possess adequate means to defend their property from banditry.
Another fantastic assumption that'd never happen in real life.
>>79299429
That's why courtrooms would be useful.
Yes, private courtrooms.
Ownership is determined by the state. If you disagree, then you must have an ideological description of what property is. And in that case, this is no longer a question of aggression, but property.
>>79299779
And if we had the police remove him then the property wouldn't get damaged, and the policemen wouldn't possibly get killed?
>>79285356
>Moral stance
Automatically idealistic thus irrelevant irl
Lolbertarians don't even try any more.
>>79299727
>Enforcing a punishment by force
Taking care of your child is not a punishment.
>Nothing to do with this.
That's exactly the same situation. Just replace:
friend - child
your house - world
invitation - sex
>Yes,by your standards just negative ones.
Nope. It also has positive rights to protection and care from people who created him (that is his mother and father).
>you creatig pollution,does that mean that I have to deal with that polution myself?
What? No, but it means you are responsible for it. You have to clean the poo that your dog left on your neighbors property. You don't have to do it yourself, you can as well pay somebody else to do it, just as you can pay a nanny to take care of your child.
>>79299967
>ancaps wouldn't even try to defend themselves, you're being unrealistic
>there would be rovings gangs of heavily-armed people just stealing houses from clueless denizens
Be realistic, now.
>>79299965
>if I dump all of the waste from my reactor into the lake and people living nearby die I haven't violated the NAP
>>79299817
NAP isn't about hurting other people, but about violating their rights. I'm not violating anyone's rights by eating meat. You're stupid.
>>79285356
Why should I, or anyone else, adopt the NAP as an axiom? It's not self-evident, and its application doesn't lead to prosperous societies.
>>79300373
Your violating the animals rights, what about vegan extremists
>>79300305
>Be realistic, now.
I am. What's stopping someone from just shooting brave ancap man when he's sitting in his car on his way to work with a rifle?
>>79300368
>people die as a direct result of my actions
>not violating the NAP
>>79300399
bitcoin will never be worth a dollar, ever again.
so thats false
