This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 57.

JimmiesForBitcoins

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: kokjo on April 16, 2013, 08:28:57 AM

Quote from: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 16, 2013, 08:11:22 AM

Quote from: kokjo on April 16, 2013, 04:14:49 AM

By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.

I think you're confusing the non-aggression principle with pacifism. They are not the same thing. Under NAP, force is acceptable only when consensual or used to uphold someone's natural rights.

i know that pacifism is not the same as the non-aggression principle. but if i don't support the NAP and i see it as an aggression, im allowed by your NAP to use force.

Pacifism is not self-violating.
NAP is self-violating.

What Myrkul said, and:

If it is force, and you want to use force to stop us from using NAP, then explain to me by what principle you determine the proper use of force to prevent us from using our alleged force.

Unless you're a pacifist. In which case... Go eat some sushi and drink your Starbucks Mocha-china-double-non-fat-macarina-latte.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: kokjo on April 16, 2013, 04:14:49 AM

By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.

You're cute.

No, it's not a self-violating principle. Let me explain. NAP stands for Non-Aggression Principle.

Aggression is the initiation of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property. Therefore, the NAP states that starting a fight, or threatening someone, or defrauding them, is immoral. That's all. It's not forcing you to behave in any way. It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Now, by extension, that means that resisting aggression is moral. This means that if you threaten me with force, I can morally respond with proportional force. So, only if you pull a gun on me, do you get shot at. If you feel threatened by this, then that can only mean that you, under normal circumstances, would have pulled a gun on me to get your way. As such, that makes you an immoral person.

All you must do to avoid the use of force, is not initiate it. I'm not threatening you with anything you don't try to use on me, first.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 16, 2013, 08:11:22 AM

Quote from: kokjo on April 16, 2013, 04:14:49 AM

By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.

I think you're confusing the non-aggression principle with pacifism. They are not the same thing. Under NAP, force is acceptable only when consensual or used to uphold someone's natural rights.

i know that pacifism is not the same as the non-aggression principle. but if i don't support the NAP and i see it as an aggression, im allowed by your NAP to use force.

Pacifism is not self-violating.
NAP is self-violating.

JimmiesForBitcoins

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: kokjo on April 16, 2013, 04:14:49 AM

By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.

I think you're confusing the non-aggression principle with pacifism. They are not the same thing. Under NAP, force is acceptable only when consensual or used to uphold someone's natural rights.

Quote from: myrkul on April 16, 2013, 12:13:37 AM

My last straw was actually speeding, and other traffic laws.

I expressed concern about not wanting to drive on roads that had drunks or speeders on them, and when the answer came back, basically, as "well, then, don't," I had a kind of "oh yeah, duh." moment.

For me, going from uncritical of the concept of government to minarchist started when I started studying America's history and the beliefs and ideas of the founders and realizing that they would never endorse this horrible monster that their establishment has become.

Then going from minarchist to ancap started with recognizing that the entire governmental electoral and legislative system was completely, completely, irrevocably broken. So I started going deeper and looking into economics, which naturally leads one to... Realizing there's nothing the market can't provide. The final straw was realizing that there was no legitimate reason to have a traditional military, much less a full blown standing army. (Which the founders also warned us about. They had a clue.)

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

The switch started for me when I took a sociology course. My professor was a dick, but he was completely honest about the state of the world, and by the end of the course, I couldn't believe all the things I missed before.

All I remember before then, as an adult, is working long hours, and before then, high school was a blur, where the only thing that mattered was staying thin and attractive (I don't remember why I cared, but I will admit to being an emo kid.) It was actually the members here at bitcointalk that steered me in the right direction, where I found out about anarchism and AnCap and libertarianism. Thank you guys Grin

Glad we have some actual intellectuals on this site.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on April 15, 2013, 10:34:00 PM

Personally, I knew I was finally and fully convinced of liberty when I finally believed that a free society would still have roads. It was one of the last holdouts in my thinking.

When you believe that government (force) is not necessary even for the building of roads, then you know you are finally cured of the meme.

Quote from: hawkeye on April 16, 2013, 12:04:57 AM

For me it was law and order. I had to know of possible ways that it would be established and work without the state.

When I was presented with the ideas and thought about them, I saw the potential for them to work so much better than they currently do and that was it. I was 100% anarchist at that moment.

My last straw was actually speeding, and other traffic laws.

I expressed concern about not wanting to drive on roads that had drunks or speeders on them, and when the answer came back, basically, as "well, then, don't," I had a kind of "oh yeah, duh." moment.

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on April 15, 2013, 10:34:00 PM

Personally, I knew I was finally and fully convinced of liberty when I finally believed that a free society would still have roads. It was one of the last holdouts in my thinking.

When you believe that government (force) is not necessary even for the building of roads, then you know you are finally cured of the meme.

For me it was law and order. I had to know of possible ways that it would be established and work without the state.

When I was presented with the ideas and thought about them, I saw the potential for them to work so much better than they currently do and that was it. I was 100% anarchist at that moment.

Walter Rothbard

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm

Quote from: MysteryMiner on April 15, 2013, 07:20:35 AM

Please people, i know that some of you have really strong opinions about free market, but please do not make so many threads about it.

Please confine all posts that advocate force to one thread. That would include any and all violations of the free market.

Somehow, I'm betting you're not willing for this to go both ways.

Quote

you people are crowding the politics board, and its not fun to troll you any more.

People who want to initiate force against me in certain situations are crowding my life, and have been doing so literally for decades. I wish they would go confine themselves.

Quote

(i know that im going to be flamed with some free speech propaganda, bring it on!)

Certainly not; the owners of this resource have the right to administrate it however they please. Nobody has a "right to speech" at the expense of others.

Walter Rothbard

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm

Quote from: Elwar on April 15, 2013, 09:00:10 PM

Why does liberty always come down to the discussion of roads?

There have been roads for centuries. Government does not have a monopoly on the road idea.

Personally, I knew I was finally and fully convinced of liberty when I finally believed that a free society would still have roads. It was one of the last holdouts in my thinking.

When you believe that government (force) is not necessary even for the building of roads, then you know you are finally cured of the meme.

Walter Rothbard

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 09:09:48 PM

But who will produce all of the government cheese-product?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXMkg5kpMCw

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Mike Christ on April 15, 2013, 09:09:48 PM

But who will produce all of the government cheese-product?

I most fervently hope nobody. Wink

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

But who will produce all of the government cheese-product?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Elwar on April 15, 2013, 09:00:10 PM

Why does liberty always come down to the discussion of roads?

There have been roads for centuries. Government does not have a monopoly on the road idea.

It's almost always the first question out of anyone's mouth. "But who will build the roads?"

Which is why it's the easiest to answer. "The people who want roads, of course."

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Why does liberty always come down to the discussion of roads?

There have been roads for centuries. Government does not have a monopoly on the road idea.

Walter Rothbard

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 04:48:58 PM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:44:17 PM

and what if i don't subscribe to the NAP.

Remember what I said about rights being reciprocal?

If you don't subscribe to it, you're not protected under it. If you aggress, expect resistance.

This answer can't be improved on.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

If you ever get the chance, you may want to consider listening to this podcast. Stefan goes into depth about what statism is and why it's no good.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:44:17 PM

and what if i don't subscribe to the NAP.

Remember what I said about rights being reciprocal?

If you don't subscribe to it, you're not protected under it. If you aggress, expect resistance.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:42:58 PM

we was discussing mine, his, and other peoples(entities) roads. A company's road would still have to fit into one of my categories.

No, it would, at most, have to make deals with the roads it connected to, and the people that traveled it.

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:43:20 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 15, 2013, 04:41:38 PM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:39:50 PM

so you are essentially forcing me, not to force other people?

Well, we're not forcing you, but if you try to force other people, we'll stop you.

with force?

Yep. Resisting aggression is always moral.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on April 15, 2013, 04:41:26 PM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:39:50 PM

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on April 15, 2013, 04:35:12 PM

Quote from: kokjo on April 15, 2013, 04:31:33 PM

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on April 15, 2013, 04:26:15 PM

So, for example, you can choose socialism. What you can't do, in a libertarian society, is choose that for other people.

and what if im unhappy with that?

I'm sorry if you can't get along without it. But that's not my problem. Cheesy

so you are essentially forcing me, not to force other people?

Responding to force with force would be appropriate. You would be the initiator, and anyone responding with force (proportionately) would be defending themselves.

and what if i don't subscribe to the NAP.

Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 57. (Read 33901 times)