Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 10. (Read 36619 times)

Who judges these cases?

Hmmm...

Typical democracy: Someone steps on my land, I defend myself
NAP: He with the most guns wins

The difference that you seem to be missing is a NAP person will ONLY kill when someone is actually infringing on their life or property, while a democracy-type (including the "libertards" you are talking about) will kill when someone doesn't do what they tell them to do, even if they are doing it on their own property and are not harming anyone else. In short

NAP = Someone steps on my property, I defend myself
Democracy = Someone tells me they must step on my property, if I protest, they attack me

(Property could be actual land, or my possessions, or even my personal freedoms)

"Self-defense for a group of people"?

WTF are you talking about? An innocent pilot shooting a terrorist trying to commandeer his plane to kill the passengers and people on the ground?

The pilot's act is a lawful killing, and not murder, not an act of aggression, only defense of innocent life. Stop redefining murder to make some convoluted point.

Exactly: self-defense is never murder. Self-defense for a group of people is not murder then.

you choose, either we are both pro-murders or we are pro-self-defence-"murders". any arguments you supply that NAP people are not murders, can and will be used against you, with NAP replaced with democracy(no, im not going to do mindless search and replace, but you get the idea).

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another.

Self-defense is never murder.

Thank you for confirming your lack of intelligence.

Now that's one collection of statements which has no meaning either wholely or in part, and when coupled with no purpose, constitutes discussion with no meaning or purpose, which is something of an accomplishment, when addressing concepts that have both, in the eyes and words of others.

First a state does not have to kill people to exist, its only in your little confused world, that it is a necessary property of a state.


Im not against murder/killing people in general, im against the state murdering its OWN citizens.

Im pro-self-survival, and im okay killing for it, or joining a larger group of people(a state) to ensure my survival.

Libertards/NAP people are also not against murder, they will also do it in self defense. Else they would not be NAP, they would be pacifists.
Libertards are pro-murder.

And yet, if the majority decides not to limit its authority, or decides to limit personal freedoms, free speech, and even be ok with killing its citizens, then you're SOL, because, as Mike has said, you have accepted its authority, and thus must submit to ALL of its authority.


And this is why I, and likely Mike, as well as other anarchist, think that libertarians still don't go far enough. As Mike said in his post, those who give any authority to government by default agree to submit to all of it. So, you are right, libertarians would still have the problem of allowing a majority to decide some things, and would still end up having issues to being "subject to the 'tyranny' of the majority." That's why we're not libertarians. (P.S. We agree with that part, and we don't know whom you're talking to with that paragraph).

Libertard - "You are either against murder, or you are pro-murder!"

Kokjo - "I'm against murder, but I'm for some murder."

Yeah, the gray area/middle of the road thing doesn't work here.

NO. In a democracy the people can choose to limit the state's authority. I can be for a government that allow free speech(even for them who speeks against the government) and a lot of personal freedom, I can be for a governement that allow its citizins to be a gay nazi jew libertard, if thats what they want to be. That government can also be pro-taxes, which i think is a good thing, and i will support it. BUT i will not support a government that kills its citizens, limits its citizins personal freedoms substantially, and is against free speech.
Now may you that its still a democracy, and everyone is then subjected to superior and unlimited authority of the majority. But you know what? You would still be that in a libertarian society, no matter how anarchistic it is. If the majority decides something, they decide something. No matter how much you stand on your ridiculous moral high ground, they would still get their will. You would still be subject to the "tyranny" of the majority.

I can support some authority, but reject other forms of it. I might not get my will, but at least i tried.

Please stop using your black-or-white fallacies now.

I think it would be better to have a unified gun law in the entire US. it doesn't make sense that you cant take a gun with you in one district but can easily get one in another

Another sad incident today....

Condensed version: government was given an inch, in the form of the US Constitution. As the US Constitution has no magical ability to enforce itself, the government subsequently took googolplex light years, and could only be more totalitarian if it started filling mass graves.

It's not; in fact, I explain, in the very next sentence, how being in favor of any government leads to being in favor of all government.  You do not get to pick and choose which government you want to be apart of, and which parts you do not; if the majority believes smoking should be banned, smoking is banned, despite how smokers feel.  If those same smokers and the majoirty believe abortion should be banned, both abortions and smoking are banned.  So on and so forth.  To believe in government, is to subject yourself to every law; you cannot be pro-authority and not accept all authority.  To be pro-authority is to subject yourself to everyone elses authority (also handed to the central government), and if you feel, just one thing, just one tiny little thing needs to be banned, you must accept all other bans as fair, or accept none, not even your own proposed ban.

If you seek government to get your way, you are pro-authority, no matter what you believe government should have authority over.  To be pro-freedom is to not believe coercion is right, and as all government is coercion, you cannot believe in rulers to be in favor of freedom; this means:

You must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything.

And by the way, you're ignoring the rest of my post.  Stop nit-picking and actually take the entire argument into consideration.

No, that was not your original statement. That statement you just wrote is an instantiation of the law of noncontradiction(you can't care and not care at the same time), and black-or-white logic is then applicable.
This statement on the other hand is not:
It's a fallacy. I really hope you can see why.

Then tell me the alternative to either being in favor of politics, or not; not caring about politics does not change the fact that it is there.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white