Say, want to play a game?
Not right now but i'll think about it. 
Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 7. (Read 33901 times)
May 12, 2013, 07:34:49 PM
May 12, 2013, 07:18:29 PM
(hint: One's a threat, the other isn't.)
Yep, kind-of agree. The second guy gave himself away and got neutralised before things got out of hand. May 12, 2013, 06:53:40 PM
Quote
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property.
So, now you're going to back-track and say that thoughts are completely private and non-transferrable, i.e.: intellectual property, that they don't necessarily manifest themselves in the real world, and as Stefan Molyneux would say "they don't really exist unless you turn them into actions" ??
Do you understand the difference between saying, "Wow, you're an evil person." and "Wow, You're an evil person. I am going to shoot you for that."?
(hint: One's a threat, the other isn't.)
May 12, 2013, 06:43:59 PM
And I never said anything about believing the NAP. You Anarcho-Nuts are the guys pushing that shit.
Which Anarcho-Nut keeps telling you to return to these threads? I know kokjo only comes to deliberately troll, but it's almost like you want to be taken seriously.
May 12, 2013, 06:26:07 PM
agree, as long as i have the "right" to kill people when it benefits me, with everything taken into account.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
Sure, just as long as you remember that each of your actions is not an isolated event. It's not like you can lie or kill when it benefits you, and then come back and trade and donate as if nothing happened. Lying costs you trust, meaning you could get ripped off, and killing costs you in increased personal security expenses. If you add all your options and all their costs together, you'll still see that being honest and trading has a higher overall payoff than lying, stealing, and killing. Sure, there are outliers where doing the bad things is more profitable, but only if you can get away with it, and then you still risk being found out.
and of course my actions are not isolated events, i have never claimed that. In fact the opposite, i take calculated risks when the chances are high enough for success and the possible benefits outweighs the costs, with everything taken into account, including my status in society afterwards.
And yet, despite understanding this, you claim that this reality of human interaction is only possible due to laws and fear of consequences from police...
May 12, 2013, 04:31:15 PM
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
...and by doing so you are aggressing first, thus im allowed by NAP to act on it, without Myrkul interfering.everyone happy now?
So my considering you an enemy is reason for you to attack? You are so evil that I'm at a loss for words.
If he feels threatened by your opinion, then under the NAP your thoughts would be thought-crime.
Seems these assholes believe in thought-crime, and worse yet, they don't discriminate between real crime and thought-crime, or between reality and fantasy.
May 12, 2013, 04:26:13 PM
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
...and by doing so you are aggressing first, thus im allowed by NAP to act on it, without Myrkul interfering.everyone happy now?
So my considering you an enemy is reason for you to attack? You are so evil that I'm at a loss for words.
If he feels threatened by your opinion, then under the NAP your thoughts would be thought-crime.
You thinking "kokjo is so evil" = credible threat of force. Would you have your index finger on the trigger, ready to blow his brains out, just in case he makes any sudden moves?
You too are an idiot. It's a fine line between idiot and asshole.
May 12, 2013, 04:22:26 PM
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
...and by doing so you are aggressing first, thus im allowed by NAP to act on it, without Myrkul interfering.everyone happy now?
So my considering you an enemy is reason for you to attack? You are so evil that I'm at a loss for words.
If he feels threatened by your opinion, then under the NAP your thoughts would be thought-crime.
May 12, 2013, 03:28:57 PM
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
...and by doing so you are aggressing first, thus im allowed by NAP to act on it, without Myrkul interfering.everyone happy now?
So my considering you an enemy is reason for you to attack? You are so evil that I'm at a loss for words.
May 12, 2013, 03:28:05 PM
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
...and by doing so you are aggressing first, thus im allowed by NAP to act on it, without Myrkul interfering.Anybody want to play a game?
May 12, 2013, 03:25:12 PM
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
...and by doing so you are aggressing first, thus im allowed by NAP to act on it, without Myrkul interfering.everyone happy now?
May 12, 2013, 03:09:45 PM
agree, as long as i have the "right" to kill people when it benefits me, with everything taken into account.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
Sure, just as long as you remember that each of your actions is not an isolated event. It's not like you can lie or kill when it benefits you, and then come back and trade and donate as if nothing happened. Lying costs you trust, meaning you could get ripped off, and killing costs you in increased personal security expenses. If you add all your options and all their costs together, you'll still see that being honest and trading has a higher overall payoff than lying, stealing, and killing. Sure, there are outliers where doing the bad things is more profitable, but only if you can get away with it, and then you still risk being found out.
and of course my actions are not isolated events, i have never claimed that. In fact the opposite, i take calculated risks when the chances are high enough for success and the possible benefits outweighs the costs, with everything taken into account, including my status in society afterwards.
I do not mock you, I consider you a criminal, an enemy. You, by your own words, have no problem with murder for profit, thus, you are my enemy, as I can never know when you may try to kill me in order to take my money.
May 12, 2013, 02:50:11 PM
agree, as long as i have the "right" to kill people when it benefits me, with everything taken into account.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
Sure, just as long as you remember that each of your actions is not an isolated event. It's not like you can lie or kill when it benefits you, and then come back and trade and donate as if nothing happened. Lying costs you trust, meaning you could get ripped off, and killing costs you in increased personal security expenses. If you add all your options and all their costs together, you'll still see that being honest and trading has a higher overall payoff than lying, stealing, and killing. Sure, there are outliers where doing the bad things is more profitable, but only if you can get away with it, and then you still risk being found out.
and of course my actions are not isolated events, i have never claimed that. In fact the opposite, i take calculated risks when the chances are high enough for success and the possible benefits outweighs the costs, with everything taken into account, including my status in society afterwards.
May 12, 2013, 02:42:41 PM
agree, as long as i have the "right" to kill people when it benefits me, with everything taken into account.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
Sure, just as long as you remember that each of your actions is not an isolated event. It's not like you can lie or kill when it benefits you, and then come back and trade and donate as if nothing happened. Lying costs you trust, meaning you could get ripped off, and killing costs you in increased personal security expenses. If you add all your options and all their costs together, you'll still see that being honest and trading has a higher overall payoff than lying, stealing, and killing. Sure, there are outliers where doing the bad things is more profitable, but only if you can get away with it, and then you still risk being found out.
May 12, 2013, 02:25:38 PM
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten.by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival.
making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements).
forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you.
Agree?
I obey rules, but I don't consider them to be arbitrary. I don't fight unless attacked, I don't steal unless I'm starving, and even then I'd rather beg, or better yet, shovel shit or chop wood for someone in return for food. Also, NAP is a principle upon which a society is founded, like the USA was founded upon "The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", and even in an AnCap society, no-one expects all people to adhere to it at all times, thus the need for companies to provide arbitration, security, and so on.
May 12, 2013, 02:23:08 PM
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten.by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival.
making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements).
forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you.
Agree?
Your options are not limited to kill and take or be killed and taken from. You are completely forgetting trade. You can kill and take, but then you are limiting your options when it comes to trade. No one will buy or sell with you, so you are limited to killing to survive until you yourself are killed. If you don't kill, but trade instead, your options are vastly more numerous. You can sell your stuff, you can buy whatever you need, and you can make partnerships to develop more complex products. History is full of examples of warring countries switching to trade, because they can both make much more money (be more profitable) from trade than from war and pillaging each other's resources.
Agree?
May 12, 2013, 02:21:22 PM
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten.by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival.
making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements).
forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you.
Agree?
Your options are not limited to kill and take or be killed and taken from. You are completely forgetting trade. You can kill and take, but then you are limiting your options when it comes to trade. No one will buy or sell with you, so you are limited to killing to survive until you yourself are killed. If you don't kill, but trade instead, your options are vastly more numerous. You can sell your stuff, you can buy whatever you need, and you can make partnerships to develop more complex products. History is full of examples of warring countries switching to trade, because they can both make much more money (be more profitable) from trade than from war and pillaging each other's resources.
Agree?
but its still the same game of eat or be eaten:
I will kill people, when it benefits me. i will trade with people, when it benefits me. i will lie, when it benefits me. i will donate money, when it benefits me.
I will do whatever benefits me, including trading, lying, donation and of course murder.
This is the consequence of darwinism in any society.
im just arguing in favor for a state the pushes the cost-benefit coefficients in favor for a "no-murder, go-trade"-society. And im going as far as saying that a AnCap society would be worse then a state in "rigging the game".
May 12, 2013, 02:10:17 PM
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten.by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival.
making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements).
forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you.
Agree?
Your options are not limited to kill and take or be killed and taken from. You are completely forgetting trade. You can kill and take, but then you are limiting your options when it comes to trade. No one will buy or sell with you, so you are limited to killing to survive until you yourself are killed. If you don't kill, but trade instead, your options are vastly more numerous. You can sell your stuff, you can buy whatever you need, and you can make partnerships to develop more complex products. History is full of examples of warring countries switching to trade, because they can both make much more money (be more profitable) from trade than from war and pillaging each other's resources.
Agree?
May 12, 2013, 02:05:08 PM
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten.by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival.
making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements).
forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you.
Agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game
May 12, 2013, 01:59:25 PM
You actually think that NAP would lead to more violence? Under AnCap, you would be dead, so for folk like you, who lie, and are willing to kill or attack others for profit, yes, AnCap is less secure.
eat or be eaten.by saying that you will not make unprovoked attackes(NAP), you are limiting your own possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival.
making arbitrary rules for yourself, limits your possibilities of action, thus giving you a smaller chance of survival(generalization of the two previous statements).
forcing other to obey your rules, gives you a bigger chance of survival, if they do not rebel against you.
Agree?
Jump to: