Topic: Freedom is ... - page 10. (Read 14409 times)

But if you were to rent, would you complain that part of your rent payment goes to property improvements you're not interested in? Would you complain if the landlords said 'no pets'?

Move to a gay friendly state. Kind of like moving if you don't like your landlord.

I also came from a country that was the opposite of NAP, where everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others, and speaking badly about the government or any of its propaganda resulted in a visit from an official, along with some uncomfortable questions and names placed on blacklists. So, I may be a bit biased, but we do have quite a bit of " you're unpatriotic" accusations and no-fly-list issues, and the whole " imprisoned without charge and renditioned to a foreign country for a false accusation of terrorism" was only recently stopped.

I'm gay. My partner and I own a house we both pay for, but it's in his name. If he dies, I shouldn't have to pay inheritance tax to take ownership of his house. If I refuse to, since our marriage isn't recognized, I will have others come after me for my money.
I like to grow flowers. Some of them are beautiful, but were deemed dangerous and banned because others use them to make drugs. I can't grow them, because I'll risk having my door busted down, even though I'm only interested in the flowers.
I like to travel, and do so a lot. Neither I, nor the airlines, want to put up with the idiotic taking off shoes and not carrying liquids rule, but both of us are forced to comply with them.
I wish to hire someone to do some web work for me. To do so, and pay them legally, I have to report whom I'm hiring, fill out forms, and pay a variety of taxes and insurances, even if it's just a temporary contract work. If I don't do this (and most people don't), I risk getting in trouble with the government.
Plus there's the issue of my tax dollars going to pay for things like police arresting nonviolent drug offenders and giving them food and housing for months, or going to pay for military that at times tends to kill innocent civilians with no repercussions, both perfect examples of aggression being initiated unjustly.

Prove, or logically demonstrate, that in a NAP society, the NAP principle will fail then. That's a proof positive.

More to the point, what's the point of discussing NAP? Where do you feel that you are missing out on NAP in your life?

Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why?

I've already made the commitment you seek. You even quoted it:

No one claimed anything like that. You are misunderstanding NAP, which means simply that no one has the right to agress, AND those who do will be aggressed against in kind. A NAP society will not be any more or less devoid of criminals than the current one, aside from the fact that some crimes today are actually legalized, which would still be considered unfair aggression under NAP.

Because any right, in order to be a right, must be universal. Therefore, either everyone has a right to be aggressive, or nobody has. With me so far?

ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?

i am aware of this book and the logic contained has been demonstrated to be fallacious by bitbutter in this youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMt6CxZUOog)

Would that not disprove my claim that it is universal, and thereby prove to me that it is not? If you can make such an argument, do so. I think you're just stalling and avoiding actually presenting your argument.

So, you're saying that it's impossible to prove that the NAP is not universal? Or that it's impossible to disprove my argument that it is? If either of those is what you're saying, then you concede defeat, and I accept your surrender.

In other words, that's exactly what you're saying. Have a nice day.

I'm not saying anything one way or another regarding the matter, nor am I going to. Address my statements if you are able to, or choose not to. I have no need to engage in agreements with you.

It's a simple question. Simply indicate that you are calm and rational enough to converse without insults, and we can continue our conversations. What I want is calm and rational conversation. Are you saying that you're not calm and rational enough to give me that?

If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want.

I have no trouble answering your statements, but if my conversation partner isn't calm and rational, there's no point, is there? Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?

You're having trouble answering my statements, aren't you? If you can't, or don't want to, fine. We can just discuss movies instead. Your choice.

You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you?