They keep playing out the same illogical debating style:
- Non An-Cap person disputes X for whatever reason (e.g.: that in practice the NAP would be just like government laws, but with trigger-happy lynch mobs in charge who have no respect for fair trails or due process, or literacy for that matter.)
Statists keep playing on the same illogical debating style. AnCap person describes NAP as a mutually agreed on policy, and goes on to describe how it will likely be maintained by private arbitration and private security (think police, but whom you actually choose and pay for directly), and Non AnCap person for whatever reason ignores all that and insists that NAP can only result in lynch mobs and mob justice.
- An-Cap person responds with an appeal to hypocrisy. Despite "the one" NAP being summarised in a lengthy Wikipedia page, they cherry-pick a snippet from Myrkul's personal interpretation, point to it and say things like "are you seriously suggesting that you would prefer to be violent? Because if you reject 'X' that means you must be in favour of 'Y'."
AnCap person explains that the NAP is a specific thing, a definition of a policy, but statist ignores the definition, and starts coming up with things like, "but what if my NAP is different from your NAP?" trying to redefine words in order to argue about how bad something is when it's used with their specific definition, and then gets upset when told that changing definitions like that doesn't work, and that when they propose "the opposite of not being violent," what they are actually proposing is the idea that initiating aggression or being violent for no reason should be allowed.
- Whenever the non-An-Cap person responds, the An-Cap person -- instead of defending the NAP -- again goes on the attack. They basically believe that governments are universally bad, and that the NAP is universally good or (or at least much better). And when the NAP is deified like that, you know they could never be 'convinced'. They've made up their mind and their
opinion perma-view is final! I think the term "calcified mind" fits nicely (thanks Myrkul!)
AnCaps believe that Government would be ok, if it was voluntary, and if supporting it (paying taxes/fees) was voluntary, and the idea of "not being aggressive" and "only being defensive" is good, while statists come up with strawmen arguments, arguing that AnCaps are saying something completely different, that NAP is something completely different, and then argue against their own made up versions of what AnCaps believe in and what NAP means.
For the last time. NAP is "I won't fuck with you, you don't fuck with me. If you fuck with me, I will defend myself." Every other version of NOT-NAP is the following:
1) I
will fuck with you, but don't you fuck with me back, and don't defend yourself. Just let me totally fuck you over.
2) I won't fuck with you, but please, feel free to fuck with me all you ant, I won't defend myself
3) I won't fuck with you, you won't fuck with me, but if one of us decides to fuck with the other, the other just has to bend over and take it.
You don't like the NAP. Ok, then you have those three other choices. Please let us know which one you believe is better. Being a violent asshole (1)? Being a defenseless pussy (2)? Just being completely pacifist and letting anyone walk over you and your neighbors/family (3)? Please enlighten us.
