Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.
See, The US is not a NAP based society. It's based instead on the Constitution, which guarantees criminals a swift and fair trial. 
Topic: Stefan Molyneux: Lymphoma - page 4. (Read 5070 times)
Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
Just to clarify this, there is obviously no way to enforce the NAP in a free society, right? Obviously, there is no central authority and thus no central law as such. People would be free to agree with it or not.
It's just that you would have security companies enforcing property rights. And they would hire arbitration companies for disputes between different customers of different companies. Or something along those lines.
Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
No, You're free to not respect the NAP. Just don't expect protection under it if you don't. If you're going to be acting antisocially, why should society keep you around?
Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.
in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!
WIN!
if someone damages you or your property than its not aggression to demand just compensation.
Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
the point is that you shouldnt have a problem with being "forced" to not be aggressive. Because for the other person that is called self defense. And yes people have the right to defend themselves.
Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies? In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.
in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!
WIN!
if someone damages you or your property than its not aggression to demand just compensation.
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.
in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!
WIN!
In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.
in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!
WIN!
That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.
LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything. in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.
I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force.perfectly simple.
so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.
im beginning to like this NAP stuff.When you act outside the social structure, don't be surprised when it doesn't come to your aid.
in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.
I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force.perfectly simple.
so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man. im beginning to like this NAP stuff. Yeah, right. When I'm being beaten up all I care about is the money I will get.
in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.
I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force.so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.i don't think so, no(but "they" said that he was reaching for a gun).
Well, if a bunch of armed men burst into your house wouldn't you reach for a gun (assuming you had one, which, as a good Dane, I know you don't)? And if you did reach for a gun, would you be aggressing, or acting in self-defense?[/quote]
in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.
so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.
Yeah, right. When I'm being beaten up all I care about is the money I will get.
he put airplanes into buildings.
But was he aggressing?so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man. he put airplanes into buildings.
But was he aggressing?so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?
he put airplanes into buildings.
But was he aggressing?Jump to: