[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 55tg / 8teen / htg / marx / polmeta / stol / trs / v9k ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: 802e4d921e885b2⋯.jpg (367.68 KB, 1105x1159, 1105:1159, 1472807312495.jpg)

 No.44460

and im laffin

 No.44463

>>44460

A micro-fraction of a house is worth very little without the rest of the house, so this wouldn't be very likely to happen.

More likely the bank would repossess the house, that's all


 No.44527

why would the bank issue such a risky loan without a state to back them up? why would anyone invest in the security of that loan?


 No.44532

File: 489855c0ce0e475⋯.jpg (92.18 KB, 620x463, 620:463, egglestonfig1web_620px.jpg)

File: 25ba6e313b447ad⋯.jpeg (86.39 KB, 576x384, 3:2, from Dep of HousingUrbanD….jpeg)

>>44527

ding ding ding, we have a winner

thanks LBJ

thanks Carter

thanks Clinton

thanks hollywood

thanks jews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7oglIAdnJM


 No.44600

>>44527

It pretty much answers itself, private courts.

>anarcho capitalism wouldn't have courts

top fucking kek


 No.44604

>>44527

>why would anyone invest in the security of that loan?

you'd be surprised how many idiots would do such a thing


 No.44710

File: b7896b5c6bfd90a⋯.png (150.02 KB, 580x600, 29:30, Facebook.png)


 No.44721

>>44710

It doesn't though, accidentally bumping into someone isn't aggression and neither is accidentally bumping into someone's website


 No.44754

>>44721

But, wouldn't it be the equivalent of stepping on someones property (trespassing) on someones property so you'd have to pay a fine? Also, clicking on the website is quite deliberate.


 No.44755

>>44754

Most websites are perfectly legal to visit

It's the same as bumping into someone- not a criminal offence!


 No.44757

>>44755

Yeah but the server is on your private property… so what you're saying if someone could trespass on someones property it wouldn't result in a fine?


 No.44758

>>44757

replace could with would*


 No.44759

File: 18ae3d735402f4d⋯.jpeg (119.49 KB, 960x960, 1:1, darkseid purging your shi….jpeg)

>>44757

For fucks sake, can you goddamn piece of shit just read a fucking textbook on criminal law already?! This would solve a good ninety-percent of all the questions you could possibly have concerning the NAP!

Okay, now let me educate you: When people don't deliberately damage or endanger your property, and don't act with negligence, then they cannot in any sense be criminally culpable or responsible for any possible damage to your property. Every single one of the statist courts you faggots keep invoking will tell you the same thing. I'm not even sure how much of this doctrine is codified in any legal system.


 No.44760

>>44759

>For fucks sake, can you goddamn piece of shit just read a fucking textbook on criminal law already?! This would solve a good ninety-percent of all the questions you could possibly have concerning the NAP!

Not an argument also:

>NAP!=!criminal law

>When people don't deliberately damage or endanger your property, and don't act with negligence, then they cannot in any sense be criminally culpable or responsible for any possible damage to your property.

It's settled then, you can literally stay on someones property without violating the NAP, as long as you don't damage anything.


 No.44766

>>44760

>The normal standards of criminal attribution don't apply to the NAP because I say so

>Even though I've never studied criminal law nor anarchocapitalist theory

>No one will ever tell you to that the law you're standing on is his, thereby making a further stay on it negligent

Confirmed for retard/troll/both.


 No.44769

File: a1b2e047be2b614⋯.gif (2.92 MB, 439x401, 439:401, 60335a242f78b61d3838b625cb….gif)

>I'll appropriate the same statist law I so wish to have overthrown

Good fucking job, you just went full retard.

>>44766

>>The normal standards of criminal attribution don't apply to the NAP because I say so

Yeah, keep saying that to yourself as you'd allow pedophilia/child prostitution.

>Oh, b-b-but it's not within me territory/town!!! So, it doesn't count I tell you!!!

>>Even though I've never studied criminal law nor anarchocapitalist theory

Another non argument, good job.

>>No one will ever tell you to that the law you're standing on is his, thereby making a further stay on it negligent

By your own definition of trespassing you can't get fined for it. Also, good job again for defeating yourself:

>Trespassing on someones property doesn't earn you a fine in common law!


 No.44776

File: 81212bd7d773ff4⋯.jpg (103.1 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault (2).jpg)


 No.44777

File: a01b64dde53cb21⋯.jpg (70.09 KB, 640x640, 1:1, Ancap memes_f853d6_6054905.jpg)


 No.44793

>>44757

if trespassing does not damage the property nor hinder the owner's enjoyment of said property, then it is OK. Also, property lines would be visible and unambiguous.


 No.44811

File: 3512759de0112a1⋯.png (277.09 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 1483995388765.png)


 No.44817

File: 5e32a7b14e77fa0⋯.jpg (65.89 KB, 391x960, 391:960, 1483995658995.jpg)


 No.44819

>>44759 tfw you realize the NAP is full of shit

>>44766 not an argument

>>44760

>>44769

this guy has the right idea. Non-aggression principle. As its philosophy stands it gives you the right to enslave or kill any kid that steps onto your property. There's no way to argue out of that until the NAP addresses proportionality.


 No.44825


 No.44826

Zlppvzukk


 No.44827

Fuck you.


 No.44828

And fuck you more.


 No.44829

9pjz


 No.44830

Pkjilpp


 No.44840

>>44825

>>44826

>>44827

>>44828

>>44829

>>44830

ancaps don't take losing debates very well. Does losing a debate count as a violation of the NAP?


 No.44848

>>44840

honestly I have no idea whats going on here or why you replied to all of your own posts but the NAP does address proportionality, or rather the context around it does.

lets say your a fucking psychopath who shoots some 12 year old that walked on your lawn, the family is going to be pissed as hell, the community will be pissed as hell, and you would probably die soon.

>nap gives you the right

no, it dosnt give you anything except a much easier time peacefully cooperating with or being left alone by others who ascribe to it

> to enslave

the NAP is built partially on top of the idea of self ownership you fucking retard.


 No.44894

>>44819

> As its philosophy stands it gives you the right to enslave or kill any kid that steps onto your property

that goes beyond the retribution the NAP allows. You are in effect violating the NAP if you do this.


 No.44928

>>44754

If you don't want others to visit your website

- why don't you disconnect the server?

- why do you put up the ads?


 No.44942

>>44848

>>44894

>>44928

This guy is not interested in anything resembling a debate.

>no preparation prior to the discussion

>obviously no knowledge or understanding of any of the issues involved

>starts a thread with "im laffin" and the anarchy shot meme

>constantly goes on tangents about muh child slavery

So how about you fulfill your sacred duty, sage this shitty thread and stop giving him serious answers? You cannot convince him, he cannot teach you anything, he won't convince anybody else who would be of any use to the movement… there's literally no reason to talk to him.


 No.44970

>>44942

m8, I'm only one of these guys.

To stop sound waves from entering your property you need to invest in sound-insulation which is expensive and maybe it's not even able to block the sound waves completely. So it's an aggression, like someone punching you, you need to invest in body-building, pepper spray, a body-guard, or something similar, and they still can succeed in attacking you.

The electromagnetic signals that travel to your server to interact with it cannot travel there by nature though, they need the cable that you voluntarily plugged in so you plugging in the cable can be seen as a voluntary agreement by you in the signals reaching the server.


 No.44972

>>44970

Oh look, it's the old, tired "my photons are trespassIng on your lawn"-argument. You're not being innovative. David Friedman came up with this shit fourty years ago. Not sure why you bring it up, though, seeing as it contributes nothing to this discussion.


 No.44973

>>44972

We are discussing the image >>44710 posted and if you don't want discussion why don't you leave the thread?


 No.45371

>>44777

>If I keep using hyperbole, I'll make myself clear and look intelligent




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 55tg / 8teen / htg / marx / polmeta / stol / trs / v9k ]