[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / dempart / doomer / eirepol / fart / lounge / utoronto ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Scheduled downtime for server maintenance:
April 25 at 12:00 noon PST

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = 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

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Ya'll need Mises.

File: 64efb88827acaf5⋯.png (118.83 KB, 575x366, 575:366, ancap_taxation_theft.png)

File: d7919023a531aaf⋯.png (154.95 KB, 454x395, 454:395, statist_shooter_new-zealan….png)

File: 3ca59d884180b02⋯.png (2.5 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, sabaton_white_death.PNG)

 No.99398

I want to become skilled with weapons and physically fit. I want to travel all the way to New Zealand to kill this scumbag who killed the innocent. He doesn't even deserve a trial. He is no "red-pilled lad," he is a statist; he is a collectivist. A self-admitted fascist and, which he admitted himself, identifies most politically with the People's Republic of China.

Thread Theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s43yLMgXXOU

 No.99399

File: dbcb77188907bba⋯.png (271.02 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, christchurch socialist isr….png)


 No.99401

File: 6b5a03b15a1f565⋯.jpg (51.78 KB, 641x578, 641:578, 6b5a03b15a1f565554860aaf2c….jpg)

>>99398

Fuck off, reddit. We already have a thread. >>99381

>Not already being physically fit

>Not already being skilled with weapons

Bitch nigger.


 No.99407

You are operating off of a contradictory set of morals. Apparently you believe that it's justified for you to kill if others violate your personal ethics but it's not justified for others to kill if others violate theirs. As expected of a newfag flagfag.


 No.99408

>>99407

This is a pretty clear violation of the NAP m8. The involved party here shot up a mosque. That being said anyone taking this guy's manifesto seriously is a fucking retard.


 No.99409

>>99408

The NAP should not be applied universally. You have no obligation to grant aliens or invaders rights of any kind.


 No.99411

>>99409

You have no obligation to grant aliens

Was it him or the government fault for allowing invaders in?


 No.99413

>>99398

99% of people are statists mate


 No.99414

>>99411

>Damn, miss the green text . I'm so tired today.


 No.99418

>>99407

Commies and moslems aren't people so they require no justification to get killed. Aussie boy did almost nothing wrong.


 No.99420

>>99409

you may not have to grant them any rights but you don't have to kill them. you have to stay ideologically consistent. the point of a voluntary society is to universalize non-violence


 No.99421

>>99420

>the point of a voluntary society is to universalize non-violence

says who?


 No.99424

>>99401

This thread was made first, you fucking retard.


 No.99425

>>99421

because a voluntary society is the antithesis of the state. the state uses violence and coercion just like the shooter also did. if you want to look at all Muslims collectively and call them invaders to try to rationalize the shooting, you're completely wrong because we can also look at white people collectively and say they're invaders for creating wars in their land causing them to move to New Zealand, the US, Canada, France, and the UK.


 No.99426

>>99398

Haven't they already arrested this guy? Also his manifesto is more than likely a bigger troll than anything else, this guy was fucked. I have a hard time believing that he actually liked the Chinese government anymore so than Fortnite trained him to "floss on the bodies of his enemies"

>>99407

>personal ethics

This was a very cut and dry violation of the NAP, this asshole straight up walked into a an institution and burst fire on everything from women and children to the elderly. You can denote it by saying "personal ethics" but there's not a whole lot that can change the facts.


 No.99427

>>99425

So basically just guilt by association. "Governments do thing therefore thing is always bad". I guess punishing this guy is immoral as well since the state makes a practice of punishing murderers?

>if you want to look at all Muslims collectively and call them invaders to try to rationalize the shooting, you're completely wrong because we can also look at white people collectively and say they're invaders for creating wars in their land causing them to move to New Zealand, the US, Canada, France, and the UK.

If whites made a practice of emigrating in droves to Muslim countries then yes they would be invaders and it would be justifiable to kill those whites who are invading. And corrupt Jewish wars for Israel and unjust immigration are two separate issues, it's fallacious to try and equate them.


 No.99429

>>99427

>So basically just guilt by association. "Governments do thing therefore thing is always bad". I guess punishing this guy is immoral as well since the state makes a practice of punishing murderers?

you're strawmanning my position. I'm trying to show that killing innocents is a violation of the NAP.

>If whites made a practice of emigrating in droves to Muslim countries then yes they would be invaders and it would be justifiable to kill those whites who are invading. And corrupt Jewish wars for Israel and unjust immigration are two separate issues, it's fallacious to try and equate them.

killing innocents is still a violation of the NAP unless they're trashing everything. the situation with the Muslims is different because they flee the terrible living conditions that the governments in the west have created.


 No.99431

>>99429

And why should the NAP be applied universally?


 No.99432

>>99431

because society will then fail when some aren't required to follow the NAP


 No.99434

File: b18ed6bdf6ccc0c⋯.png (109.14 KB, 354x400, 177:200, 3b99d9936e6c353383b99f55f6….png)

>>99429

NAP doesn't apply to everyone, you leftist nigger.


 No.99436

>>99434

who doesn't it apply to?


 No.99437

File: 78eead8b0febb2a⋯.png (804.58 KB, 477x724, 477:724, 0%.png)

>>99436

Only to those who agreed to its rules. Communists like you lack such capacity so it doesn't apply to you, making libertarian society a permanent open hunting season on red menace, letting capable people constantly work on improving society.


 No.99438

>>99437

>everyone i don't like is communist


 No.99439

>>99436

The NAP is a set of rights and obligations which are applied to all members of the community. If an individual is not a member of the community, neither the community nor the individuals who make up the community are obligated in any way to grant him any sort of rights to non-aggression.

New Zealand is not a Muslim country. The "victims" of the shooting were not members of the New Zealand community, they were members of the Muslim community. The moral right to citizenship is not one that aliens are born with, and it is not even one that the state can grant. It does not matter whether or not these foreigners whine about how their country is an irredeemable shithole, and it does not matter how much they pretend that they are entitled to admission to the community. They remain aliens, both ethnically and culturally, and therefore there is no moral obligation for the actual New Zealand citizens to grant them any degree of right to non-aggression.


 No.99440

File: 52c72e34d5cd0d0⋯.png (524.22 KB, 750x748, 375:374, faad96218fd190c1c945ca802b….png)

>>99438

Sure, sure. Since you've proven that, i'll gift you a free helicopter ride right here. Get in, we're going to have fun.


 No.99441

>>99439

You're putting some sort of odd spin on the NAP That does not exist. The NAP is simply the principle that an individual has the right to his property, his person, etc and that aggression against an individual and his property is illegitimate.

The fact that there's muslims in New Zealand doesn't suddenly justify shooting them, they own their own property just like everyone else. If you want to discriminate against them and keep them out of your communities, you have that right but going to a mosque and shooting them is not legitimate in any manner at all, it doesn't matter how you spin it.

Catholics are not a member of my community, nor are buddhists, this doesn't justify me killing them, robbing their stuff or doing anything to that accord. I don't kind of shit you're trying to spin here but it makes no sense.


 No.99442

>>99432

Provide evidence.


 No.99443

File: 086684b1689fd54⋯.mp4 (876.72 KB, 842x348, 421:174, are you serious.mp4)

>>99442

>provide evidence that society will fail when people refuse to respect people's property rights

C'mon now nigger, really? Have you visited your local ghetto lately? It's the most common of common sense, if people refuse to respect one another's property rights, you eventually have a society where violence and theft is rampant and as such civilization itself cannot be maintained.

I genuinely should not have to explain this, nor should anyone for that matter.


 No.99444

>>99439

The people of New Zealand granted them rights. that's what citizenship is. you can't just arbitrarily revoke their rights because all of a sudden they are invaders in your mind. stop trying to rationalize an atrocity to be some edgelord. by your logic your whole town and family should be murdered by native americans (if you're american)

>>99440

never once said I was communist. Keep believing that though

>>99442

you can't make arbitrary exceptions to who gets to follow the NAP it's ideologically inconsistent and it's a recipe for disaster.


 No.99445

>>99441

Just saying that the right to non-agression is universal is not an argument. I see no reason at all why I am obliged to grant this right to an alien who is not affiliated with my community and is in fact taking part in the degradation of it.

>Catholics are not a member of my community, nor are buddhists, this doesn't justify me killing them, robbing their stuff or doing anything to that accord

Are Catholics or Buddhists immigrating to your country in droves and supplanting the local communities with their own? If so, you definitely have the right to do something about it.


 No.99446

>>99443

Who are you quoting?


 No.99447

>>99444

Still haven't provided evidence. try again, commie.


 No.99449

>>99447

>why wouldn't a society that doesn't respect each other's rights and constantly aggresses against each other not work?

a society where everyone is at each other's throats is not good or is it healthy


 No.99450

>>99449

How do you plan to make people follow the NAP without violating the NAP?


 No.99451

>>99449

Still no evidence


 No.99452

>>99444

>The people of New Zealand granted them rights

False. The government of New Zealand granted them rights. You shouldn't adopt the delusion that the state represents some sort of holy moral authority that the people must follow.

>revoke their rights

It's impossible to revoke something that did not exist in the first place. Unless this shooter entered into a moral contract with the Muslim community beforehand, he did not do anything wrong.

>by your logic your whole town and family should be murdered by native americans (if you're american)

The Indians definitely had the right to defend their communities. They failed. Now look where they are.

>you can't make arbitrary exceptions to who gets to follow the NAP

You're begging the question by assuming that non-aggression rights must be universal. These are not exceptions and they are not arbitrary. There is no reason at all why someone must accept an obligation to deliver on the right of non-aggression to an alien who is not a member of the community.


 No.99453

>>99449

How do you equate not granting rights to foreigners with not granting rights to countrymen?


 No.99455

File: 3fe0fe5b5b30b65⋯.jpg (63.32 KB, 570x856, 285:428, CIA nigger.jpg)

>>99445

>Just saying that the right to non-agression is universal is not an argument.

Except it actually is. You can keep denying it is but what you've essentially drawn arbitrary lines where it makes no sense to do so. What's ironic is the implication that "the NAP is universal" is somehow not an argument whereas "The NAP doesn't apply to people who are different from me" somehow is. That's not an actual argument, it's just an odd stipulation that you added, but has nothing to do with the actual principle at hand.

>I see no reason at all why I am obliged to grant this right to an alien who is not affiliated with my community and is in fact taking part in the degradation of it.

You don't grant him any rights at all, he has rights as is it's just that you're taking his rights away and that's the key problem here.

>degredation

And what defines degradation here? We just saw some guy whip out some guns and kill innocents who by large had done nothing tangible to destroy the community in any shape or manner with the intention of doing it so that New Zealand gun owners would lose their rights and so that this would cause political problems in the United States. That right there realistically deserves the label of degradation, moreso than a Muslim just existing within society.

>Are Catholics or Buddhists immigrating to your country in droves and supplanting the local communities with their own?

There was a time when Catholics were argued to have been invaders into the United States, and they faced massive hostility from various communities, it got to the point where they would eventually have to take up arms to protect their churches, etc. How was violence against Catholics justified in any way? The fact that they're not "of your community" does not justify violating the NAP, if it did then people would be justified in murdering every tourist that comes into the country, and more than that it would be completely logical to just go to war with anyone different than you for no particular reason other than the differences themselves. Wars (ie: the Iraq war, Vietnam war, etc) would be completely justified so long as they're against different people. This is not the NAP, this is just blatant and retarded nonsense. What are you even referring to by supplanting?

If you want these people gone, you can refuse to do business with them, you can not associate with them in any tangible manner and ensure that their presence in the community is minimal if present at all, but killing them is a simple violation of the NAP and nothing could change that.


 No.99456

>>99453

because you're giving foregeiners free reign to stomp all over you

>>99451

keep saying that

>>99450

never said I was libertarian either. non violence is just a good thing to follow

>>99452

>False. The government of New Zealand granted them rights. You shouldn't adopt the delusion that the state represents some sort of holy moral authority that the people must follow.

You seem to be under the delusion that the community didn't accept them because one man murdered them

>It's impossible to revoke something that did not exist in the first place.

Does someone have to grant you a right to life or does it not matter if someone took it away because you were never granted it?

>he did not do anything wrong.

keep trying to rationalize the shooting

>The Indians definitely had the right to defend their communities. They failed. Now look where they are.

now you're advocating for imperialism the shooter didn't even do that.

>You're begging the question by assuming that non-aggression rights must be universal. These are not exceptions and they are not arbitrary. There is no reason at all why someone must accept an obligation to deliver on the right of non-aggression to an alien who is not a member of the community.

nice ideological inconsistency.

>property rights for me, not for thee

you're either a sociopath who's trying to justify murder or you're an edgy kid


 No.99457

>>99445

>obliged to grant this right

Rights are inherent, not granted.


 No.99459

>>99455

> You don't grant him any rights at all, he has rights as is it's just that you're taking his rights away and that's the key problem here.

Rights cannot exist without obligations. When you say that someone has a right, it is the same as saying that a certain set of people have an obligation to treat them in a certain way. I cannot see any way how a moral obligation can be forced onto any individual. This is why I do not believe in natural or universal rights. It makes sense for every member of a certain community to be granted certain rights, and to make membership of that commnity contingent on certain obligations. It does not make sense to try to apply this to every single human being because the state of being a human on earth is not something that is granted by any organization.

>so that New Zealand gun owners would lose their rights and so that this would cause political problems in the United States

Politicians are the ones enacting these gun laws. If this is really what upsets you, then would you agree with OP's desire to kill except directed at gun-banning politicians instead of a gunman?

>does not justify violating the NAP

*violating your idea of a universal, natural NAP

>if it did then people would be justified in murdering every tourist that comes into the country

No, if it did then justification would be possible. Which it is. Tourists do not have any sort of intrinsic right to visit any country they want.

>and more than that it would be completely logical to just go to war with anyone different than you for no particular reason other than the differences themselves

Could you please provide me with a syllogism showing how this is logical?


 No.99460

>>99456

>because you're giving foregeiners free reign to stomp all over you

How so?

>now you're advocating for imperialism the shooter didn't even do that.

Pointing out how the Indians failed to defend their communities is not 'advocating for imperialism'.

>nice ideological inconsistency.

explain how it's inconsistent.


 No.99461

>>99460

>How so?

because you're not respecting any of their rights. not even their right to life. so why should they respect yours?

>explain how it's inconsistent.

<property rights for me, not for thee


 No.99462

>>99456

You're repeating the same claim over and over, with no evidence to support it. Where is it?


 No.99463

>>99461

>so why should they respect yours?

They shouldn't, that's the point. They get shot instead.

<property rights for me, not for thee

>gibsmedats, what do you mean protection ain't free

/leftypol/, pls


 No.99464

>>99461

>because you're not respecting any of their rights. not even their right to life. so why should they respect yours?

This is why we have national defense. If foreigners are not invading or engaging in destructive mass immigration, there is no reason why a conflict needs to start. If one society wishes to engage in trade with another, contracts can be formed.

>property rights for me, not for thee

I never said that. My position is that rights are not universal. Members of my society certainly do not have universal natural rights any more than aliens do. The difference is that I am engaged in a moral contract with them wherein I agree to oblige them certain rights in exchange for them obliging me certain rights. If there is anything illogical about that please tell me.


 No.99465

>>99464

if you want property rights to be respected you must respect theirs also. going to the mosque and killing people minding their own business on their property is a violation of property rights. you can discriminate against them and they can discriminate against you but you cannot kill someone who isn't an aggressor.

> If there is anything illogical about that please tell me.

the problem is that you're trying to rationalize a mass murder


 No.99466

File: ad9d76fe9f7f805⋯.jpg (100.87 KB, 999x454, 999:454, ad9d76fe9f7f8059392405d842….jpg)

>>99456

>you're giving foregeiners free reign by not granting rights

>non violence is just a good thing to follow

>the community didn't accept them because one man murdered them

>someone have to grant you a right to life

>rationalize the shooting

>advocating for imperialism

>you're either a sociopath who's trying to justify murder

Wew lad, that whole post is filled with neoliberalism


 No.99467

>>99465

>if you want property rights to be respected you must respect theirs also

Who are they to be respected?

>oing to the mosque and killing people minding their own business

Moslems aren't people

>but you cannot kill someone who isn't an aggressor

He clearly did it pretty well.

>the problem is that you're trying to rationalize a mass murder

Don't see a problem. It's only mass murder if you kill people.


 No.99468

>if you want property rights to be respected you must respect theirs also

If I want property rights to be respected I must respect the property rights of MEMBERS OF MY COMMUNITY. Aliens are not members of my community.

>the problem is that you're trying to rationalize a mass murder

So you can find nothing illogical then?


 No.99469

>>99466

>Wew lad, that whole post is filled with neoliberalism

<you don't advocate for mass murder of innocents so you must be neoliberal

the right to association is fine. the right to murder someone minding their own business on their property is not


 No.99471

>>99468

So what you are saying is that I can violate your property rights if I'm not a member of your community?


 No.99472

>>99471

Yeah, you can try to


 No.99473

>>99468

>So you can find nothing illogical then?

you're cheering on mass murder and you're also picking and choosing who's property rights you respect.


 No.99474

>>99469

>mass murder of innocents

>moslems

Top kek


 No.99475

>>99473

And why is that illogical, aside from causing you butthurt?


 No.99476

>>99473

And can you explain to me how that is illogical?


 No.99477

>>99472

aren't you tough and edgy

>>99475

>>99476

it's à la carte and murder is retarded


 No.99478

File: 8e750f772c9daa3⋯.webm (750.97 KB, 720x480, 3:2, obamasfault.webm)

>Upset at current system.

>Could target politicians, influential–

>NOPE, SHOOTS UP SOME UNKNOWN MUZZIES IN AN ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FUCKING PACIFIC.

Even if the NAP wasn't a thing, HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?!


 No.99479

File: 253936b0f13b0a9⋯.jpg (651.32 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Metal gear.jpg)

>>99459

>Rights cannot exist without obligations. When you say that someone has a right, it is the same as saying that a certain set of people have an obligation to treat them in a certain way.

That's not correct, there's a big distinction in legal philosophy between forcing someone to do something and telling them not to do something. With the NAP it's a simple "do not violate the property of other people", the shooter failed at just that. It's not much more complicated than that.

>Politicians are the ones enacting these gun laws. If this is really what upsets you, then would you agree with OP's desire to kill except directed at gun-banning politicians instead of a gunman?

Killing a politician who actively tries to take away your rights is to a degree, absolutely justifiable, there's no issue with that in of itself. It's far more justifiable than killing innocent people who haven't violated the NAP in any way whatsoever.

>*violating your idea of a universal, natural NAP

No, just the NAP. If anything your idea of a non-universal NAP is an odd and nonsensical one.

>No, if it did then justification would be possible. Which it is. Tourists do not have any sort of intrinsic right to visit any country they want.

So now under your version of the NAP, people can just shoot tourists now. Good to know.

You clearly don't know what the NAP is, and I think this post right here >>99472 proves it. You've gone so far in drawing arbitrary lines of "community" that foreign invasions are practically justified. What's ironic is that you asked me for a syllogism as to how it's justifiable in your line of thought and then you go on to say "yeah you can try to".

Take your larp back to /pol/ please.


 No.99480

File: e20000c7a88f739⋯.jpg (20.19 KB, 361x250, 361:250, 4YmxuVh.jpg)

>>99478

Quiet. He did exactly what a stupid neetsoc goy should.


 No.99481

File: 8ff411c69e0e469⋯.jpg (29.83 KB, 600x612, 50:51, 469.jpg)

>>99477

Nice no argument there, kiddo

>>99478

It's just accelerationism

>>99479

>With the NAP it's a simple "do not violate the property of other people"

Nope, but keep pretending that a basis of a society is a mere "i promise, guise"

>It's far more justifiable than killing innocent people

>muds

Keep repeating that, libshit drone

> No, just the NAP

Nope, your redefined "NAP". You're not even libertarian to define it in the first place.

>Good to know.

Feel free to visit

>drawing arbitrary lines of "community"

<They are arbitrary because i say so

> Take your larp back to /pol/ please.

Now that's ironic. Go back to choking on nigger dicks on tumblr, inbred homosexual.


 No.99482

>>99481

>reddit frog

>trying to be edgy

>kym filename

okay, kid back to 4chan


 No.99484

File: ecbea1241ccfae1⋯.png (43.45 KB, 439x401, 439:401, ecbea1241ccfae146a6e0a5dbc….png)

>>99482

>still just basic namecalling

You sure trying hard there, tumblr


 No.99485

>>99479

>That's not correct, there's a big distinction in legal philosophy between forcing someone to do something and telling them not to do something

You've yet to give us a reason why every single moral agent has the obligation to not perform certain actions other than claiming "the NAP says so".

>If anything your idea of a non-universal NAP is an odd and nonsensical one.

Again, please explain how 'my NAP' is nonsensical.

>What's ironic is that you asked me for a syllogism as to how it's justifiable in your line of thought and then you go on to say "yeah you can try to".

First, that's not me. Second, you've failed to construct a coherent syllogism. I take it you were relying on me replying that foreigners are morally obliged to respect my property rights, but this is not true. There's nothing intrinsically immoral about a non-community member transgressing on my property, just as there is nothing immoral about me killing him for it. This is why weapons were invented, this is why it is important to be able to defend your property. I wouldn't call a muskrat immoral for making a nest in my property, but likewise there is nothing immoral in my killing it.


 No.99487

File: 98098db721976c3⋯.gif (1004.18 KB, 299x193, 299:193, What the fuck.gif)

>>99481

>Nope, but keep pretending that a basis of a society is a mere "i promise, guise"

The function society lies within not acting like niggers and killing, robbing and raping each other, if you hard time grasping that then unfortunately you may very well be retarded.

>Keep repeating that, libshit drone

>I'M OWNING THESE LIBSHITS DAD

Now we're just throwing around boomer memes as arguments. Bravo

>Nope, your redefined "NAP". You're not even libertarian to define it in the first place.

>YOUR NOT LIBERTARIAN

Are you actually retarded? I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which (for all intensive purposes, since you don't know what the fuck you're talking about) pretty much is Libertarianism, but more logically consistent.

But go ahead and amuse me please, find me one Libertarian author, even in the Chicago tradition, who supports your idea of the NAP. I'm genuinely amused by your retardation.

> <They are arbitrary because i say so

They're arbitrary because they have nothing to do with the NAP nor does it have any sort of logical basis for existing as a condition within the NAP. It's like if I was teacher telling kids "don't do to other what you wouldn't like to happen to yourself" and then some retard pops up out of nowhere and says "UNLESS THEY HAVE BLUE EYES, IN WHICH CASE, FUCK 'EM". It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and it's blatantly retarded.

>>99485

>You've yet to give us a reason why every single moral agent has the obligation to not perform certain actions other than claiming "the NAP says so".

I don't even have to, it's up to you to prove that you have to and ironically, you can't without making nonsensical propositions that have no logical basis to them (ie: he's not a member of my 'community' therefore it's an invasion, etc).

>Again, please explain how 'my NAP' is nonsensical.

I already did so in a post above. You've created these weird lines where suddenly the NAP does not actually count, so now if someone is different than you and is within your vicinity, suddenly murder is justified however there is nothing in the NAP that follows this logic at all, in fact this is a simple violation of that individuals rights. The fact that he's different does not warrant him being killed, there's no logical reason for it.

> I take it you were relying on me replying that foreigners are morally obliged to respect my property rights, but this is not true. There's nothing intrinsically immoral about a non-community member transgressing on my property, just as there is nothing immoral about me killing him for it.

Thank you for proving me right. Under your borderline retarded OC idea of the NAP, foreign invasion is completely justified. Like I said before, neither of you retards know what the fuck you're talking about. Get help and quit being so edgy,


 No.99488

File: fb622aa71bc63c6⋯.png (168.22 KB, 480x270, 16:9, Hans-Herman-Hoppe-helicopt….png)

>>99487

>The function society lies within not acting like niggers and killing, robbing and raping each other

>muslims

>each other

Nice one, try again

>I'm an anarcho-capitalist

>>99456

<never said I was libertarian either

>find me one Libertarian author, even in the Chicago tradition, who supports your idea of the NAP

He's looking at you

> I don't even have to, it's up to you to prove that you have to and ironically, you can't without making nonsensical propositions that have no logical basis to them

<I cannot do that so believe my unsupported claim and prove me wrong

Keep going, nigger

>weird lines where suddenly the NAP does not actually count

It never did, but keep repeating that over and over

>this is a simple violation of that individuals rights

And his rights ought not be respected

>Get help

Wow, so edgy, your argument is invalid, i win


 No.99489

>>99487

>I don't even have to

Yes you do. Your argument relies heavily on the universality of the NAP and thus far you've refused to actually defend this point at all.

>you can't without making nonsensical propositions that have no logical basis to them

And you refuse to actually prove that such statements are illogical. It should be relatively easy to do so if they were in fact flawed.

>in fact this is a simple violation of that individuals rights

Who has granted him these rights?

>The fact that he's different does not warrant him being killed

He is not being killed because he is 'different'. You are betraying your ignorance on the motivations of these shooters.


 No.99491

How many glowinthedark CIA niggers are on 8chan right now? Jesus fuck you guys really want to burn this place to the ground because Hillary didn't get in, don't you?

Here are some hints:

He implicated Q, Canadace Owens, 8chan & Pewdiepie. Meanwhile - John Pedosta is visiting new Zealand. This is 100% False Flag. This shit glows so insanely hard, you could power a continent with it.

Not to mention that he specifically said that Jews are innocent, while he's attacking muslims; muslims are a symptom of Israel pulling the U.S. in the Middle East. Here's a hint: “Mossad spy ring 'unearthed because of Christchurch earthquake”

This is literally a case of side A pretending to be side B, attacking side C, so that B and C keep fighting, while side A reaps all the gains.


 No.99492

File: b91a136cb96b084⋯.gif (1.79 MB, 240x176, 15:11, dear lord.gif)

>>99488

>Nice one, try again

You're not even making an argument at this point, now you're just throwing memes. Either that, or you really are this retarded.

>He's looking at you

>FascistmisunderstandPhysicalremovalforthe30thtime.jpg

Read a book he's actually written and quit being retarded please. If you had read what he's actually written then you'd realize that what he wrote was essentially what I advocated a few posts up, murder isn't really in his books.Keep up champ.

>Keep going, nigger

Can you not read? Or do you not understand the concept of the "Burden of Proof"?

>It never did, but keep repeating that over and over

Do you actually have an argument or are you just here to waste time?

>>99489

>Yes you do. Your argument relies heavily on the universality of the NAP and thus far you've refused to actually defend this point at all.

No, I actually don't. The idea that the NAP is not universal is a point you are making, the burden of proof thus lies on you. Explain to me how the NAP applies to me in regards to my fellow atheist but suddenly when it comes to the Catholic next door it should be thrown out the window. On what logical basis does this make any sense?

>inb4 he's not a part of "the community"

And? How does him not being in your "community" somehow warrant violating his property rights? If some out of towner comes to my town looking for some water, is shooting him justified because he's not a part of community? What kind of inbred nigger logic is this? His existence within your general area is not a violation of the NAP, I know that's a hard pill for you to swallow but if you had no problem swallowing some aussie mosque shooter's sperm then you should have no problem processing very simple logic.

>And you refuse to actually prove that such statements are illogical. It should be relatively easy to do so if they were in fact flawed.

We already have. Numerous times. Someone different from you in belief, in religion or in race living near you does not qualify as enough of a reason to violate the NAP.

>Who has granted him these rights?

He has them inherently, how many times do we have to go over this?

>He is not being killed because he is 'different'. You are betraying your ignorance on the motivations of these shooters.

Yes, he is being killed because he's different. He is being killed and his murder is justified by your accord because he's 'not a member of the community'.


 No.99493

>>99488

>He's looking at you

oh yeah, show me where Hoppe advocates for killing migrants and not granting them the right to own property.


 No.99495

>>99492

>Explain to me how the NAP applies to me in regards to my fellow atheist but suddenly when it comes to the Catholic next door it should be thrown out the window. On what logical basis does this make any sense?

You have entered into a moral agreement to grant your peers various rights. You have not entered into any such agreement with aliens.

>How does him not being in your "community" somehow warrant violating his property rights?

Rights can only exist if they are granted. I have not entered into any sort of moral contract with him, therefore there is no reason to believe that I have any sort of obligation to behave a certain way to him.

>Someone different from you in belief, in religion or in race living near you does not qualify as enough of a reason to violate the NAP.

You are begging the question again. I do not accept your conception of the NAP, therefore I do not have any sort of obligation to follow it.

>He has them inherently

Prove that he has them inherently.


 No.99496

>>99492

>You're not even making an argument at this point

I already did several times but you keep ignoring them

>Fascistmisunderstand

>what he wrote was essentially what I advocated a few posts up

Nice one, fascist pig

>what he wrote was essentially what I advocated a few posts up

So if this was communist org it'd be fine?

>Or do you not understand the concept of the "Burden of Proof"?

Do you? You've been jumping around like that for a while now.

> Do you actually have an argument

You've been given it in every single post, yet you so desperately ignore it. once again, your idea of "universal NAP" doesn't make sense and is not libertarian, and neither are you. Sperg out as much s you want, i'll be quoting your post every time.

>Nigger goes into reddit spacing mode as he weasels out

Honestly, CIAniggers should find better people, these can't even act dumb right


 No.99497

>>99488

>He's looking at you

oh yeah, show me where Hoppe advocates for killing migrants and not granting them the right to own property.

>>99495

>You are begging the question again. I do not accept your conception of the NAP, therefore I do not have any sort of obligation to follow it.

not the guy you're responding to. but you're so retarded, god how about you live in your own collective and leave everyone to their own devices instead of trying to preach your shitty à la carte version of the NAP.

>Rights can only exist if they are granted.

who granted you the right to live or to post on this board, nigger?


 No.99498

>>99497

>not the guy you're responding to

CIA NIGGER SAMEFAG SPREE


 No.99499

File: 041d69bbf484db1⋯.jpg (244.47 KB, 977x692, 977:692, Jordhani Peterson.jpg)

>>99495

>You have entered into a moral agreement to grant your peers various rights. You have not entered into any such agreement with aliens.

> Oh boy, I didn't sign any formal agreements with my chinese neighbor, better go kill, rape his daughter and do whatever else I please

The NAP is not a contract, you absolute imbecile. As said before, you clearly do not have the slightest idea as to what you're talking about. It's almost like you're trying to create some sort of parallel ala the social contract. Stop this retardation and actually read about the NAP and Libertarianism in general.

>Rights can only exist if they are granted.

Once again, incorrect.

>You are begging the question again. I do not accept your conception of the NAP, therefore I do not have any sort of obligation to follow it.

Then you're just not actually following the NAP, you're just going by some random code of ethics that you made up right off the fly and just decided to name it after the NAP despite no resemblance to it in any actual manner. You're just wasting people's time with edgy denseness.

>Prove that he has them inherently.

He owns himself, he owns his body, ergo he is the one who has the rights to such things which inevitably extends to external property as a human being must utilize and appropriate external resources in order to survive, etc. I'd go into with deeper detail but it's clear with a retard such as yourself that it would just be a massive waste of time.

Just go back to /pol/ and larp there, I doubt you've actually convinced anyone of your retarded thesis, and god help the niggers who actually 'think' like you.


 No.99500

Don't know what the popular opinion here is, but it seems like every other board in the top 50 with the exception of leftyfags are celebrating a self admitted zionist mass shooter who played right into the divide and conquer strategy of pitting innocent whites against innocent minories while ignoring the elite in power. Even questioning the attack will get you half a dozen replies calling you a shill. I'm getting the same feeling i got around when i left 4chan, that the entire site is compromised, and discussion is no longer possible. Sad that even the most fringe sites are now populated with edgier neocons.


 No.99501

>>99499

> The NAP is not a contract

<Imagine actually believing this

>It's almost like you're trying to create some sort of parallel ala the social contract

<Don't mind me telling you to protect other's property for free, that's completely different

> Once again, incorrect.

PROVE IT, FAGGOT

>Then you're just not actually following the NAP

He does, actually, unlike the feel good bullshit you made up. Still a non-libertarian shilling btw

>You're just wasting people's time

Oh, the irony

>He owns himself, he owns his body, ergo he is the one who has the rights to such things which inevitably extends to external property as a human being must utilize and appropriate external resources in order to survive

So all this should be served to him by others?

>I doubt you've actually convinced anyone of your retarded thesis

KEK, this inflitrating nigger sure is funny

>god help the niggers who actually 'think' like you

Wow, so edgy, i guess you lost, just admit defeat.


 No.99502

>>99499

Nice pic btw


 No.99503

File: 9840a115bc0b090⋯.jpg (981.65 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, comfy18.jpg)

>>99500

Likewise man. Maybe it's time to migrate again. Fucking three-letter agencies have to fucking keep up on shitposting now? Really?

Nice dubs, btw.


 No.99504

>>99497

>He owns himself, he owns his body, ergo he is the one who has the rights to such things

Yes, it can accurately be said that a living person owns their own body. However, this alone does not prove that other individuals with no prior relationship to that person are obliged in any way to respect the claim that that person has on their body and grant them the right to continue on with this ownership in perpetuity.


 No.99505

>>99501

no one can actually be this stupid. I know you're probably shitposting but in case you aren't: private property is where you can have your community. Like a Hoppean covenant. Hoppe even says anyone can do anything they want with their property

> the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others

also if you're not shitposting then libertarianism probably isn't for you


 No.99506

File: 9575074b3ba2b3f⋯.jpg (14.66 KB, 255x239, 255:239, a8c6c1af1cc70ecee772c5c300….jpg)

>>99505

Oh, teach me more on libertarianism, mr. non-libertarian CIA nigger.


 No.99507

File: 2d5c910c5d6bc9d⋯.webm (7.52 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, why tf you lying.webm)

>>99501

><Imagine actually believing this

Again, just open a book.

>Don't mind me telling you to protect other's property for free, that's completely different

>telling someone not to rape, kill or rob someone is the same as telling someone to protect that man's property.

You are a retard.

>PROVE IT, FAGGOT

Did so.

>He does, actually, unlike the feel good bullshit you made up. Still a non-libertarian shilling btw

Except I am a libertarian, once again I'm an anarcho capitalist, you two on the other hand are just some neetsoc from /pol/ pretending to be a Libertarian when it's clear you don't understand anything about Libertarianism or Libertarian literature, in which case you'd realize how retarded you are.

>So all this should be served to him by others?

Who said anything about serving anyone anything? You actually have to be retarded to think like this.

>KEK, this inflitrating nigger sure is funny

>infiltrating nigger

This is actually funny, I've actually been here probably longer than most anons that are browsing today, maybe with the exception of Orthodoxbro (or formal logic man but I'm pretty sure he hopped on later than I did). But nice try trying to act like you're not some sort of neetsoc from /pol/ trying to influence other boards with your retardation.

>Wow, so edgy, i guess you lost, just admit defeat.

Talking to a brick wall does seem to be pointless venture, especially so when the brick wall somehow manages to have autism.


 No.99508

>>99507

Really? Your rebuttal is "you're secretly a nazi"?

You're being ridiculous. Not everyone here treats political philosophy books as infallible gospel.


 No.99509

>>99508

>gets a non argument to a non argument he made

<how could this be happening


 No.99510

>>99507

>just open a book

Kek, been working on /leftypol/, i see?

>telling someone not to rape, kill or rob someone is the same as telling someone to protect that man's property

Nope, you are a retard.

>Did so.

Nope, you did not

>Except I am a libertarian

>>99456

<never said I was libertarian either

Keep trying, your false flag attempts are funnier with each try

>you two on the other hand are just some neetsoc from /pol/ pretending to be a Libertarian

Nice namecalling m8

> Who said anything about serving anyone anything?

You're talking about some imaginary universal law, no need to pretend you aren't retarded.

> I've actually been here probably longer than most anons that are browsing today

<I've been here for several hours, i'm so oldfag

Keep trying, CiAnigger

>Talking to a brick wall does seem to be pointless venture, especially so when the brick wall somehow manages to have autism.

Too edgy for me, you lost.


 No.99512

File: 1d042102b6c9ae8⋯.gif (1.6 MB, 390x220, 39:22, whatareyouonabout.gif)

>>99510

>Kek, been working on /leftypol/, i see?

no, you just actually need to read, that is if you're able.

>Nope, you are a retard.

The fact that you fail to grasp very simple ideas is what's baffling to me. It's like saying that the very fact that I would allow someone to order fried chicken from Popeye's is basically the same as saying I'm forcing society to feed this guy fried chicken. It's so fucking dumb that I have to believe that you're shitposting.

>Nope, you did not

Except I did.

>Keep trying, your false flag attempts are funnier with each try

That's not me, I have this flag, remember? Basic pattern recognition is important anon.

>You're talking about some imaginary universal law, no need to pretend you aren't retarded.

I'm talking about consistency in regards to ethics and governing property. If that's something you can't gather your head around then that's your problem, just stop pretending to be a Libertarian.

><I've been here for several hours, i'm so oldfag

You're not fooling anyone.

>Keep trying, CiAnigger

Oh yeah anon, the CIA-nigger is definitely the guy saying "let's not kill people randomly". Such a CIA-nigger thing to do, look at me trying to set up false flags of peace where people don't step into mosques and open fire. You caught me anon.

God damn you're dumb, in an almost amusing way.

>Too edgy for me, you lost.

Are you sure you're not an infiltrator yourself? At this point it seems like you're just throwing around memes without thought or reason. There's nothing edgy about pointing out the fact that you can't process very basic facts or that you have autism, it's just the unfortunate state of affairs that we live in.


 No.99514

File: 8e4c1243ebb657a⋯.png (168.95 KB, 275x355, 55:71, d6dc6ef810f71a755b9f244953….png)

>>99512

>you just actually need to read

Yeah yeah, to >>>/leftypol/ you go

> Except I did.

Except you didn't, which is why you don't provide proof or point to it, only repeating the same thing over and over.

>That's not me, I have this flag

Well, i guess i'm you now.

HEY I SUCK COCKS

>just stop pretending to be a Libertarian

Lel, says someone who reduced libertarian theory to the level of ancom

>You're not fooling anyone

Oh, i don't, mr oldfag

>the CIA-nigger is definitely the guy saying "let's not kill people randomly"

<the CIA-nigger is definitely not the guy saying "le's just pretend that we have order, it'll work"

Good try, still fail

>There's nothing edgy about pointing out

Oh, but it's soo edgy to point out that mudslims are not people, really

At what point did you realize that ideology you believe in is basically anarcho communism renamed?


 No.99515

File: b41e7f3dc46a782⋯.gif (498.53 KB, 500x375, 4:3, stopbeinggay.gif)

>>99514

>Yeah yeah, to >>>/leftypol/ you go

You have far more in common with communists and marxists than I or anyone else does.

>Except you didn't, which is why you don't provide proof or point to it, only repeating the same thing over and over.

Your inability to process information is your own problem.

>Well, i guess i'm you now.

How are you this dense?

>Lel, says someone who reduced libertarian theory to the level of ancom

I doubt you know what that means, hell I'm not even sure that I know what you're referring to.

>Good try, still fail

You are terrible at this.

>Oh, but it's soo edgy to point out that mudslims are not people, really

Are you unironically some sort of teen edgehog or something?

>At what point did you realize that ideology you believe in is basically anarcho communism renamed?

The point at which you stopped being retarded, which if you haven't gathered by now, still hasn't happened and probably won't happen anytime soon.

Kill yourself, you absolute moron.


 No.99516

>>99398

>wanting to avenge people who would never avenge you

top jej


 No.99611

dont mind me, just testing something.


 No.99619


 No.99651

>killed the innocent

Is this a joke? That mosque produced over 16 terrorists.


 No.99710

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>99495

>Rights can only exist if they are granted.

Those are privileges. Rights are derived by first principles.


 No.99804

>>99710

I watched up to #5, where he starts defending the NAP, and his argument fails to hold up to scrutiny there. He assumes that the person initiating force somehow has to judge all initiation of force against him as illegitimate. This is not the case. It's perfectly possible for an individual to judge the initiation of force against him in certain instances as morally neutral. In this case, there is nothing logically contradictory about initiating force against another person, so long as if you were in the other person's position you would still not judge that action as morally illegitimate. And no, just because you judge an action as morally neutral does not mean that you cannot judge it as personally unpreferable for non-moral reasons. There is nothing logically inconsistent with valuing your own health and not valuing the health of others. When you value something, you are not making a moral claim that that thing is universally preferable for everyone or that morally the universal quantity of that thing should be increased or that others cannot morally diminish your enjoyment of it; you are simply making a statement that you, personally, would rather have that thing than not have that thing.

Additionally, when he comes to point #4, he conflates the proving of facts with the justification of actions. Consequently, his arguments from then on are founded on the belief that every single 'active' action that one takes must be proven to be morally positive, something that he has failed to prove or even provide an argument for.


 No.99841

>>99804

>It's perfectly possible for an individual to judge the initiation of force against him in certain instances as morally neutral.

True, but the NAP is an ethical stance and has nothing to do with morality.

> Consequently, his arguments from then on are founded on the belief that every single 'active' action that one takes must be proven to be morally positive, something that he has failed to prove or even provide an argument for.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality. Also, not every active action must be justified as Shane mentions in the video.


 No.99874

>>99841

Is there really much of a difference between morals and ethics?


 No.99880

>>99841

>the NAP is an ethical stance and has nothing to do with morality

No, NAP is a legal principle and has nothing to do with ethics. It provides a way to resolve property conflicts between legal actors on a neutral and non-biased basis.


 No.99884

>>99880

From Mises wiki:

"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate"

>>99874

morals are subjective while ethics refer to rules provided by an external source


 No.99889

>>99884

>morals are subjective

According to your definitions, ethics are just as subjective as morals. Just as different people can have different morals, different external sources can have different ethics. Likewise, it's possible to examine the ethics of an organization such as the Bar association, just as it's possible to objectively examine the morals that motivate the actions of a specific person.

>ethics refer to rules provided by an external source

If that were true, 'ethics' and 'law' would be synonyms, and I really do not think that is the case.


 No.99899

>>99884

Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society on such an unsupported stance. Not a one greater than ancoms can, anyway.

>inherently illegitimate

Deontological libertarianism, everyone. "You can't do this, man, that's, like, illegal".


 No.99902

>>99899

>they're not going to build a society on such an unsupported stance

Most actors abide by the NAP. Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property (except ,maybe during periods of societal chaos)..

>"You can't do this, man, that's, like, inconsistent/contradictory".

FTFY


 No.99904

>>99902

>Most actors abide by the NAP

Non sequitur, they may be peaceful and non-aggressive, it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with NAP.

>Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property

Communism. Now tell me what does this have to do with NAP as a legal principle.

>"You can't do this, man, that's, like, inconsistent/contradictory".

Same thing, tbh, even if that statement made sense.


 No.99906

>>99398

Can you be any more of a bitchcunt?

Get a hotshot to the NECK!!!


 No.99907

>>99904

>Non sequitur,

Nope. If they are non-aggressive (i.e. not initiating force) then they are abiding by the NAP.

>Communism.

Which communist society?

> Now tell me what does this have to do with NAP as a legal principle.

Well, we are talking whether actions are aggressive or not in that example, aren't we?

>Same thing,

Inconsistency and contradiction does not imply legality.


 No.99909

>>99907

>If they are non-aggressive (i.e. not initiating force) then they are abiding by the NAP

Nope. They still support an entity that doesn't, nor do they do anything against it or other similar one. As well as there are other people who are aggressive still, and people that aren't acting aggressively only because of a legal system present. Your point is moot and your arguments are disconnected and null.

>Which communist society?

Any.

>Well, we are talking whether actions are aggressive or not in that example, aren't we?

No, we aren't.

>Inconsistency and contradiction does not imply legality.

They are the same thing in a sense they are worthless bitching that leads to nowhere.


 No.99910

>>99889

>According to your definitions, ethics are just as subjective as morals.

These are not my definitions:

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

The NAP is logical derived by axioms such as self-ownership and remains consistent while morals pertain to the individual and may change over the individual’s lifetime.


 No.99912

>>99398

You won't do shit, nigger.


 No.99914

>>99909

>They still support an entity that doesn't,

But you just stated earlier that they were non-aggressive. Why the contradiction?

>As well as there are other people who are aggressive still

These do not comprise of most people though nor most actions.

>Your point is moot and your arguments are disconnected and null.

How so?

>Any.

So you cannot name even one?

>No, we aren't.

But we were as is evident in your previous statement: “Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society on such an unsupported stance”

>They are the same thing in a sense they are worthless bitching that leads to nowhere.

Then what is your beef with deontological ethics? Are you a Stirnerite?


 No.99915

>>99914

>But you just stated earlier that they were non-aggressive. Why the contradiction?

They do not actively aggress, yet they take a stance that is against the ethical principle. There's no contradiction.

>These do not comprise of most people though nor most actions.

They do.

>How so?

I already pointed out.

>So you cannot name even one?

Are you too retarded to not put words in my mouth?

>But we were as is evident in your previous statement

And you never pointed out what does this have to do with mine.

>Then what is your beef with deontological ethics?

Idiotic claims incoming from them.

>Are you a Stirnerite?

Do you enjoy fucking your whore mother?


 No.99916

>>99915

> They do not actively aggress,

Then their actions are consistent with the NAP.

>yet they take a stance that is against the ethical principle

Their position is irrelevant. What matters are their actions.

> Are you too retarded to not put words in my mouth?

“Any” is not a communist society

> And you never pointed out what does this have to do with mine.

Let me break it down for you:

“Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society (an actor or group of actors performing actions) on such an unsupported stance (NAP)”

> Idiotic claims incoming from them.

Then you should not have any beef with the NAP.


 No.99917

>>99916

>Then their actions are consistent with the NAP

Until they are not.

>What matters are their actions

And their actions correspond with their position.

> “Any” is not a communist society

But any communist society is.

>“Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society (an actor or group of actors performing actions) on such an unsupported stance (NAP)”

Then you're twisting words again, equating "not building society on" with "building society against". Neither is this stance "NAP". You once again prove yourself incapable of holding an argument without resorting to twisting words and sophism.

>Then you should not have any beef with the NAP.

I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.


 No.99918

>>99917

>Until they are not.

Then they are aggressive actors, contradicting your previous statement.

>And their actions correspond with their position.

Same as above.

>But any communist society is.

Care to specify which communist society and how the majority of actions by the majority of actors are aggressive?

>equating "not building society on" with "building society against"

Where did I equate this? We were talking about actions and if they abide/violate the NAP

> Neither is this stance "NAP".

Then which ethical stance were you referring to?

>You once again prove yourself incapable of holding an argument without resorting to twisting words and sophism.

Non-sequitur and character assassination

>I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.

The NAP makes no claim of sovereignty.


 No.99919

>>99918

>Then they are aggressive actors

Then they are.

>Care to specify which communist society

Any communist society, it doesn't matter which.

>how the majority of actions by the majority of actors are aggressive?

Not going to, you're moving the goalposts again. Their actions infringe on property rights, that's enough for your claim.

>Where did I equate this?

<Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property

>We were talking about actions and if they abide/violate the NAP

No, we didn't.

>Then which ethical stance were you referring to?

The one you claim to be "NAP". This is like arguing with a communist.

>Non-sequitur

A direct conclusion from the previous observation.

>character assassination

Nothing you haven't been doing, i'll just point it out all day.

>The NAP makes no claim of sovereignty.

Non sequitur, the NAP cannot claim anything. Don't play dumb.


 No.99922

>>99919

>Then they are.

Which contradicts your previous statement that they are non-aggressive.

>Any communist society, it doesn't matter which.

But this is not an example. “Any” is a general term.

>you're moving the goalposts again.

Restating my earlier statement is not goalpost shifting.

> Their actions infringe on property rights,

How do the majority of actions infringe on property rights?

<Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property

Asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP.

>The one you claim to be "NAP"

The ethical stance I was referring to was the NAP, but somehow claim it not to be the NAP. So how is the “NAP” not the NAP?

> A direct conclusion from the previous observation.

Yes, your conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument.

> Nothing you haven't been doing

Where have I attacked another’s character in this thread?

> Non sequitur,

Incorrect since dominion is sovereignty

>the NAP cannot claim anything

The NAP asserts that the initiation of force is no justifiable as demonstrated in the linked video.


 No.99923

This thread is full of win.After reading all the Nazis at /pol/ It's like a breath of fresh air seeing people having actual arguments.

(tipping hat, continuing lurking)


 No.99937

>>99922

>your previous statement that they are non-aggressive

I already agreed with your definition of "once aggressor always aggressor", what do you need?

>But this is not an example. “Any” is a general term.

And i'm using a general term as a general example. If you were interested in refuting the point you could've picked any of communist societies, including the ones that historically existed, yet you didn't, because you're a filthy demagogue.

>Restating my earlier statement is not goalpost shifting.

Retrying goalpost shifting is goalpost shifting.

>How do the majority of actions infringe on property rights?

By not recognizing them and in many ways suggesting their nonrecognition and violation, up to the point of prosecution over any voiced claim over any object.

>Asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP

<where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property

>The ethical stance I was referring to was the NAP

NAP isn't an ethical stance, again. You can repeat it many more times, yet it won't become more true. If repeating it over and over is the only argument you have you'd better stop this discussion, you're getting nowhere.

>your conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument

It does. Your 'prove me right" stance, shifting goalposts, bold and unsupported claims, picking words out of context all lead to the direct conclusion that i'm not talking to a libertarian but just a pitiful demagogue that could shill for communism next day.

>Where have I attacked another’s character in this thread?

Correction, in your case it'd be more like a character suicide, not assassination.

>since dominion is sovereignty

You're not even taking sentences but even single words out of context. Either you actually lack ability to read and are clearly unfit for this discussion or you should stop playing words and twisting them and their meaning.

>The NAP asserts

Nope, it doesn't. It's just basic principle that guides those who want to resolve conflicts. You can repeat your definition again and again, it won't change the fact that it's not any more efficient than hippies protesting against wars.


 No.99969

I find the NAP so vague tbh. I remember Larken talking about the gray areas of it. Like how much decibel from your loud neighbor is considered not aggressive, and when is it? lol

Like many other things with anarchism, it needs to be worked out more and the sooner and the more that anarchists actively trying to work it out the better, so that the people who want anarchism can get this thing going, I feel like time is running out more and more every year.

The ever-increasing grip of statism is highly disturbing.


 No.99977

>>99937

>Retrying goalpost shifting is goalpost shifting.

Rephrasing a statement without distorting the meaning is not goalpost shifting.

> By not recognizing them and in many ways suggesting their nonrecognition and violation, up to the point of prosecution over any voiced claim over any object.

This is another generalization. How are they not recognizing them? Could you provide data on these violations? If such violations are prevalent, then why are contracts so prevalent?

<where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property

Once again, asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP.

> NAP isn't an ethical stance, again.

It is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

> It does.

Proof?

> Your 'prove me right" stance, shifting goalposts, bold and unsupported claims, picking words out of context all lead to the direct conclusion that i'm not talking to a libertarian but just a pitiful demagogue that could shill for communism next day.

My previous statement still holds since you have not demonstrated where and how I am doing these supposed claims of goalpost shifting and removing context.

> Correction, in your case it'd be more like a character suicide,

Proof?

> You're not even taking sentences but even single words out of context.

“Dominion noun 1. Sovereignty or control”

> Nope, it doesn't

“he non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle


 No.99987

What's wrong with the golden rule? Except for it's origins of course.


 No.99991

>>99478

It doesn't make sense. They never targeted a single politician nor do they have the courage to make the attempt.

We're pretty much dealing with whISIS


 No.100009

>>99977

>Rephrasing a statement without distorting the meaning is not goalpost shifting.

The meaning was goalpost shifting to begin with.

>How are they not recognizing them?

By not recognizing them. How much of a nigger can you be?

>If such violations are prevalent, then why are contracts so prevalent?

Another retarded question. They are not prevalent.

>Once again, asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP.

Once again, you dense motherfucker, it's not NAP, nor is this pathetic attempt to shift goalposts of any value. Following the "NAP", or whatever feel good pretentious bullshit you make up does not equate "forming society over it", nor do i have to prove the opposite to somehow make this idiotic blabbery more untrue that it already is.

>It is

No, it isn't, you dumb fuck. Stick that wikipedia link up your ass, it doesn't mean shit.

>Proof?

Learn to read, i'm not going to waste my time repeating it so that you can ignore it and pretend it didn't happen, deceitful filth.

>My previous statement still holds

No, it doesn't, i've clearly proven your shitty attempts to shift discussion and shove your implications as if they were in any way true.

>“Dominion noun 1. Sovereignty or control”

Reread what i wrote before, you dumb fucking scum.

>“he non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.”

Yeah, yeah, repeat it again, retarded idiot.

I'm tired of walking in circles. Kill yourself, you disingenuous inbred shill. Eat shit.


 No.100113

>>100009

>The meaning was goalpost shifting to begin with.

The original meaning cannot be goalpost shifting

>By not recognizing them.

How are they not recognized?

>They are not prevalent

What are transactions? Even those most mundane purchases come with receipts.

>it's not NAP,

It is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

>whatever feel good pretentious bullshit you make up does not equate "forming society over it”

I did not make up the NAP as shown by the link above. I did not ask whether as society forms according to the NAP but asked which society does not abide by the NAP.

>No, it isn't, you dumb fuck.

It is. Also, character attacks are not arguments.

>it doesn't mean shit.

It provides the definition.

>Learn to read

>muh “Read a book”

Still not proof. You should go back to >>>/eftypol/ with that shit.

>i've clearly proven your shitty attempts to shift discussion and shove your implications

Shift discussions where? We are taking about the NAP: >>99884

>Reread what i wrote before,

<I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.

“domain (noun): a territory over which dominion (i.e. sovereignty/control) is exercised”

Once again, the NAP as an ethical stance does not claim domain. You are looking at this principle as a legal law instead of a moral law.

>Yeah, yeah, repeat it again,

“an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.”

“an ethical stance asserting”

I’ll make it more specific to comply with your reading comprehension:

"asserting”


 No.100140

>>100113

>The original meaning cannot be goalpost shifting

It fucking was and still is, no matter how many times you repeat that, you dumb nigger.

>How are they not recognized?

By being violated. Why are you so retarded?

>What are transactions?

Something that doesn't exist in communism

>It is

No, it's not. It won't be no matter how many times you spam your retarded link with feel-good bullshit, you retarded shitstain.

>muh “Read a book”

Who said anything about books, you dumb nigger? You're incapable of reading a sentence.

>We are taking about the NAP

And NAP isn't about ethics.

>Once again, the NAP as an ethical stance does not claim domain

Once again, eat shit with your ethics and learn to read. NAP cannot claim anything.


 No.100143

>>100113

>You should go back to >>>/eftypol/ with that shit.

You're in no position to tell anyone that, pretentious whiny scum.

>“domain (noun): a territory over which dominion (i.e. sovereignty/control) is exercised”

So you are actually incapable of reading sentences. Got it. Eat shit.

>You are looking at this principle as a legal law instead of a moral law.

>Moral law

Wow, that's even shittier that it was before. There's no such thing as "moral law", you fucking christcuck scum.


 No.100161

>>100113

The NAP is neither a legal nor an ethical law. It's simply the way in which you learn to live in a society in which no single entity has a monopoly on violence (or on justice). The essence of it is simply "don't fuck with people who can fuck back." It's a lesson many people unfortunately don't learn these days, because as children they're commanded by adults to appeal to authority rather than resolve issues themselves. Most of those people are going to find themselves in a gutter pretty damn quick in Ancapistan, unless they're fast learners.

It's not a matter of appealing to the jury with an argument of "but he started it!". Rather, it's a matter of choosing your fights and not starting shit with anyone you don't have to. It doesn't matter if you're an uber rich, uber powerful, cartoon villain real estate magnate who goes around extorting every last penny from your tenants; it only takes one person to get fed up with your shit to put three bullets in your head. No amount of money or power can put that back together.

Stop thinking of the NAP as a way to justify who was "right" in a conflict. Instead, think of it as a reminder to avoid conflict whenever possible, without failing to recognize when avoidance becomes impossible.


 No.100193

File: 6545fe669fb89da⋯.jpg (56.63 KB, 450x320, 45:32, teacher-lining-up-the-stud….jpg)

>>100161

>It's a lesson many people unfortunately don't learn these days, because as children they're commanded by adults to appeal to authority rather than resolve issues themselves.

OK CLASS TIME TO LINE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

https://youtu.be/zWb9wucquU4


 No.100194

File: ce547a5ef41e7ff⋯.jpg (181.86 KB, 1000x530, 100:53, Femme-Reich.jpg)

>>99398

> killed the innocent.

Muslim invaders and traitors are not innocent.

… and Statism will never go away, it can only be minimised in the right conditions nya~


 No.100195

File: 1a902df4c7ad596⋯.mp4 (4.54 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, splc_tracking_white_genoci….mp4)

>>99503

The reality of this world is one of racial, religious and class conflict. As for the NAP. consent is the issue at hand. Who can consent? Who owns the things? What does ownership mean? Who defends the property rights? Who enforces the contracts? These are the questions that matter nya~


 No.100198

File: 10161e573014fee⋯.png (1.79 MB, 1056x2880, 11:30, China.png)

>>99398

> identifies most politically with the People's Republic of China.

Well China is the mercantilist power set to dominate the world thanks the the ruling Jewish Elite in the US building them up and destroying the US for decades nya~


 No.100199

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>100194

Think about it from a libertarian perspective. If someone is trespassing on your land you can shoot them legally right? The only question in the NZ case is WHO OWNS THE LAND… and the only realy answer is the one who has the monopoly of 'legitimate' (as supported by the media) force. History can play a factor but is only ever justification. The fact that (((central banking derived finance))) controls the media means they control the land… unless there is resistance. THe only difference between a 'terrorist' (ISIS) and a king (SAUDI ARABIA) is their power relative to each other nya~

https://meguca.org/nya/


 No.100231

>>100198

take your pills schizo


 No.100271

>>100143

>>100161

>It fucking was and still is

Restating the original goal is not goal shifting no matter how many times you complain.

>By being violated.

Passive statements do not answer the question. Was specific action(s) of violation?

>Something that doesn't exist in communism

No, as we see in the CNT, where they recognized personal property rights.

>No, it's not.

> NAP cannot claim anything.

>And NAP isn't about ethics.

Proof? I cited my source and you failed to provide a rebuttal.

>Who said anything about books,

It is a metaphor, moron. Your generic suggestion is analogous to that leftypol meme.

>So you are actually incapable of reading sentences

Your words <not mine:

<I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.

<domain

There's no such thing as "moral law"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral%20law


 No.100423

>>99437

So you are against freedom of speech?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / choroy / dempart / doomer / eirepol / fart / lounge / utoronto ]