Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 56. (Read 33901 times)

Quote from: myrkul on April 16, 2013, 10:15:42 AM

Alright, Combo breaker.

Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.

Answer me one more question, Kokjo:

Who owns you?

Depends on the moral system, and the society around me. In the little state of Denmark, i own most of me.

I see. And If I were to conquer Denmark, and declare that I owned all of you, would that make it the case?

You would meet resistance, that is not based on NAP but based on survival.

survival is not NAP, and survival is not self-violating.

See, now you're just contradicting yourself.

NAP is survival, because if you do not resist being murdered, you die.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: kokjo on April 16, 2013, 10:11:48 AM

Quote from: kokjo on April 16, 2013, 10:11:48 AM

Alright, Combo breaker.

Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.

Answer me one more question, Kokjo:

Who owns you?

Depends on the moral system, and the society around me. In the little state of Denmark, i own most of me.

I see. And If I were to conquer Denmark, and declare that I owned all of you, would that make it the case?

You would meet resistance, that is not based on NAP but based on survival.

survival is not NAP, and survival is not self-violating.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Alright, Combo breaker.

Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.

Answer me one more question, Kokjo:

Who owns you?

Depends on the moral system, and the society around me. In the little state of Denmark, i own most of me.

I see. And If I were to conquer Denmark, and declare that I owned all of you, would that make it the case?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Alright, Combo breaker.

Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.

Answer me one more question, Kokjo:

Who owns you?

Depends on the moral system, and the society around me. In the little state of Denmark, i own most of me.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Alright, Combo breaker.

Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.

Answer me one more question, Kokjo:

Who owns you?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

pyramids ftw! Cheesy

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.

Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression?

as resistance against a oppressive system.

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. How is telling someone that aggression is immoral a form of aggression?

A oppressive and aggressive system(that does not support NAP), could find it an act of aggression(with good reasons) to teach people that aggression is wrong. You are taking away the oppressive system's power, they are not happy are that.

Except I'm not aggressing against even the most oppressive State by doing that. I'm defending.

if the state considers it an aggression, you have violated your own NAP. your own subjective opinion does not matter here, according to the NAP.

NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system.

On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism.

Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid.

But I'm not, you see, I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not even forcing them not to do anything. I'm simply informing all parties concerned who is in the moral right.

oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not?

My decision doesn't play into it. It's objectively immoral to aggress.

...and this is here we disagree, im saying that its subjective.

Quote from: myrkul on April 16, 2013, 09:17:47 AM

Answer for me these questions:
Is it moral to rape someone?
Is it moral for the woman to resist being raped?
Is it moral to rob someone?
Is it moral to resist the robbery?
Is it moral to murder someone?
Is it moral to resist being murdered?

Generally to all of them: it depends on the moral views of the persons involved, the situation, and the society around them.
In the current state of the world: no. yes. no. yes. no. yes.

So, if I believe that it's OK to enslave you, that makes it moral?

maybe. but you would still not violate the NAP, if you does not agree with it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.

Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression?

as resistance against a oppressive system.

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. How is telling someone that aggression is immoral a form of aggression?

Except I'm not aggressing against even the most oppressive State by doing that. I'm defending.

NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system.

On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism.

Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid.

But I'm not, you see, I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not even forcing them not to do anything. I'm simply informing all parties concerned who is in the moral right.

oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not?

My decision doesn't play into it. It's objectively immoral to aggress.

Quote from: myrkul on April 16, 2013, 09:17:47 AM

Generally to all of them: it depends on the moral views of the persons involved, the situation, and the society around them.
In the current state of the world: no. yes. no. yes. no. yes.

So, if I believe that it's OK to enslave you, that makes it moral?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.

Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression?

as resistance against a oppressive system.

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. How is telling someone that aggression is immoral a form of aggression?

Quote from: myrkul on April 16, 2013, 09:17:47 AM

NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system.

On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism.

Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid.

But I'm not, you see, I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not even forcing them not to do anything. I'm simply informing all parties concerned who is in the moral right.

oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not?

Generally to all of them: it depends on the moral views of the persons involved, the situation, and the society around them.
In the current state of the world: no. yes. no. yes. no. yes.

Schleicher

hero member

Activity: 675

Merit: 514

Good luck trying to convince everyone that your moral standards are the right ones.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.

Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression?

as resistance against a oppressive system.

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. How is telling someone that aggression is immoral a form of aggression?

NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system.

On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism.

Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid.

But I'm not, you see, I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not even forcing them not to do anything. I'm simply informing all parties concerned who is in the moral right.

Answer for me these questions:
Is it moral to rape someone?
Is it moral for the woman to resist being raped?
Is it moral to rob someone?
Is it moral to resist the robbery?
Is it moral to murder someone?
Is it moral to resist being murdered?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.

Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression?

as resistance against a oppressive system.

NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system.

On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism.

Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on April 16, 2013, 08:48:21 AM

It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay".

NAP is self-violating.

No it is not. I have explained why. If you have a better argument than stamping your foot, crossing your arms, and saying "Nuh-uh!" please provide it.

i have also explained why, by NAP you are forcing me to agree with you on NAP, or get my ass kicked. it is as simple as that.

You don't have to agree to avoid getting your ass kicked, you simply have to not try to kick my ass. Seems fair.

If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.

Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression?

NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system.

On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism.

Quote from: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 16, 2013, 08:52:34 AM

We can agree on NAP is good, but make no mistake it is threat of force for a person that does not agree on NAP.

As I said, it's only a threat of force to those who are trying to force others. Agree or not, all you have to do is not swing first, and nobody gets hurt. It's no more a threat to an honest person than a law against murder is.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: myrkul on April 16, 2013, 08:48:21 AM

It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay".

NAP is self-violating.

So then when someone comes into my house with a fully functional Star Trek phaser and demands I softly caress their scalp with the special lotion in their hobo napsack, I would be initiating aggression by kicking him in the groin and shooting him with his phaser after I set the phaser to stun? Because that's what you're claiming. Especially the part about the lotion.

yes, if he considers NAP an aggression, and what he did is not. It would only be you violation your own principle.

i know it sound ridiculous, but its only self referential logic at its best.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay".

NAP is self-violating.

No it is not. I have explained why. If you have a better argument than stamping your foot, crossing your arms, and saying "Nuh-uh!" please provide it.

i have also explained why, by NAP you are forcing me to agree with you on NAP, or get my ass kicked. it is as simple as that.

If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.

NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system.

We can agree on NAP is good, but make no mistake it is threat of force for a person that does not agree on NAP.

JimmiesForBitcoins

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay".

NAP is self-violating.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay".

NAP is self-violating.

No it is not. I have explained why. If you have a better argument than stamping your foot, crossing your arms, and saying "Nuh-uh!" please provide it.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!