If you don't accept the non-aggression principle then I'm free to use aggression on you.
And there it is, folks. The ultimate double standard.
Wrong. It would be a double standard to say "I can use aggression but don't force me not to". If you say I can use aggression on you then why wouldn't I? That's what you're doing by saying you reject the NAP.
It *is* a double standard. You are willing to use force to make me comply with your rules, while you deny me the right to use force to make you comply with my rules. One standard for you, another for me. Double standard. Big difference is you're a hypocrite and I'm not - I say "I will engage in violence to make you comply", and I do, while you say "I will never engage in violence except in defence" but you do.
But this is far too entertaining to stop here. So, all right, let's suppose I accept your NAP (which is, in and of itself an admirable principle), but I reject your definition of property. I may therefore rightfully enter, without aggression, what you consider to be your property and claim it as my own. You may not engage in aggression to eject me. Correct or incorrect?
"I'll be the first to admit it, LiberLand does require everyone to take more responsibility for themselves."
"... IF EVERY SINGLE PERSON THE WHOLE WORLD WIDE suddenly changed their nature and started behaving honestly, it might work. ..."
Those two quotes don't even share any synonyms, much less the same words, how could they possibly have the same meaning? They're not even a close substitute for what I said, fail. It's the best interest of everybody everywhere to act in a non-violent, respectful way. War, generally speaking, is too expensive to maintain. One way out is to play nicely. Most forceful means are a disincentive to improve.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the words "responsible" and "honest"...
So in your scenario, the people of Tuscon would have to up sticks and leave? Since there would be no way to actually stop someone having a nuke would there?
No, the people in Tuscon wouldn't move there in the first place if that were a possibility. The only way large cities will form is if the land is already set aside and has rules in place for it. The large land owners and developers will make sure that is the case. It's like the previous issue of "what if the guy that owns the road in front of my house wants a million dollars to use it". That would never happen because people wouldn't be inclined to live there in the first place.
Oh man, I'm bustin' my sides laughing now. You couldn't
buy comedy this good anywhere.
I gotta quit this thread - it's just too addictive. These guys just *won't* address the problems put to them 'cos the contradictions are inescapable.
Please explain how you protect the people of Tuscon from the likes of Jared Laughner with a nuke?
By charging current market-rate prices for a nuke?
AND THIS
Oh shit, I'm crackin' up... there are literally tears coming out my eyes... I can't even type... you guys have gotta stop typing dudes, every time I hit "post" there are 10 new replies and I'm just breakin' apart reading them...