/liberty/ - Liberty

>>15825

>but flaws in you.

I never claimed that any of them were or were not flaws in the NAP. I actually explicitly said that I was just thinking up scenarios that one could try and argue for the purpose of discussion.

>>15816

>1) If a jet flies over your property or a very heavy truck passes nearby causing your property to vibrate/shake, or perhaps someone digs underneath your property, is it a violation of your property and thus a violation of the non-aggression axiom?

I'd say yes. I see no qualitative difference between this and between detonating a bomb next to your property, at a distance long enough to only cause vibrations.

>2) Is spanking (or as "an"coms put it, "hitting") your child a violation of the NAP? Even if it is, does it matter?

Haven't quite figured this out. I'm not a big fan of Rothbards view on children. He's on to something, but it has several flaws. For example, he regards children as the property of their parents, except that they can't do whatever they want because children could potentially develop self-ownership. Then how exactly do children even fit under the definition of property?

>If you do not consider it a violation, is spanking your spouse a violation of the NAP?

Yes, very clearly, unless you have agreed to doing so.

>3) Can masturbating in public (or exhibitionism in general), as degenerate as it is, be considered a violation of the NAP? Question sparked by >>>/n/269523

On truly unowned property? No. Why should it be?

>4) Suicide booths could be considered a violation of the NAP since they're helping kill someone, even if it's indirectly.

Even directly killing someone is not a violation of the NAP if you do it with the permission of whoever you're killing. Hurting someone with his or her permission or even with his explicit wish is not a violation of his rights. If anything, it's an acknowledgement that those rights are his own.

Best criticism I've seen is birth. Giving birth to someone without their consent violates the NAP. See: Schopenhauer, antinatalism

Although I think that this actually supports the idea that parents own children (within the bounds of what parenthood entails) and this justifies a parent's right to spank their child. It does get a bit flimsy and subjective here, but it really is common sense. If you're hurting your child so much that they experience trauma then that would be violating the NAP, whereas if the spanking only had a neutral or positive effects then it would not be in violation.

>>15832

It's called a devil's advocate, when you purposely attack your own ideas to test them. OP literally has an AnCap flag

>>15836

>giving birth violates nap

lololol

>>15816

1. if the vibration causes damage, then yes.

2. Children - no, within reasonable limits (ie, disciplining unruly or irrational small children by forcefully patting them on the cheek (not slapping), but blood or bruises are off limits).

Another person- Only if he violates your individual rights / hits you first.

3. Depends on whose property it is being conducted. It's fucking gross and barabric but as long as you don't make eye contact with me or pass some weird fucking signals to me, you're in the clear. I'd probably ask him to go inside and never talk to that person again.

4.

>suicide booths

what's that?

If they know they'll die when they enter it and if

they enter it voluntarily, then it's fine. Same as 3., I don't want to see people dying there, and if it bothers me, I'll ask them to move it.

>>15868

I never said that birth violates the NAP. I just said that it's a good criticism. See >>7742

>>15836

It's not a criticism of NAP, but retards who still think giving birth is a good thing.

>>15868

You are clearly not an ancap. I doubt you even know what aggression means.

>>15879

yep, not AnCap.

I know what aggression means, though.

>>15878

Cuck

>>15956

I'm not

>>15916

By your definition, the NAP violates Freedom Of Speech

>>15836

>Giving birth to someone without their consent violates the NAP.

But the NAP isn't supposed to be so autistic to hold up under all circumstances. It should be a general principle so that anarchist society doesn't collapse into chaos, not something you use to make things almost everyone thinks are already okay into aggression.

Even if logically you can argue the margins there are certain margins that will never be issues because they aren't even issues now, so they can be discarded. The margins of the NAP on whether, say, a sit down strike is aggression or what counts as mixing your labor to create property are important to provide the basic rules of society so that it can stick together, but not the edge cases where giving birth can be qualified as aggressive, since that would be making a problem for the sake of it.

Principles should be justified as schelling fences for the purposes of mediating outcomes.

Consequentialism > Deontology.

>>16067

I agree. If you are rich, the NAP shouldn't apply to you.

>>16102

bait