Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When people live together, their actions affect others. Sometimes those actions are unwanted. The unwanted action does not have to be an initiation of force. It simply has to be an action that has consequences upon others.
Is this why authoritarian statist make non-crimes crimes? Like using drugs and prostitution as examples? Look at it this way. If you punish these non-crimes you are the aggressor. The only actions which are real crimes are initiations of force upon others. And yes, I agree, actions which harm others are initiations of force as the victims would not have consented to the action if given a choice. So it may be how I express the non-aggression principle that is not clear.
I have no idea why anyone would be against the non-aggression principle and maximizing freedom for each and every human being. It is the simplest and most fundamental moral code that even very young children understand almost intuitively. Only a psychopath believes in a fictional right to initiate force upon others to get what they want.
Why is it that statists/collectivist cling so tightly to the "morality" that they have a divine right to impose their will upon others with acts of government aggression? They use government thugs to commit crimes against their neighbors for their own benefit. Yet most would never consider commiting those same crimes themselves directly. It is as if getting thug government agents to do it on their behalf, that they then believe they are innocent, which they are not.
You either obey the non-aggression principal or you are a thug and a tyrant.
Live and let live
Oh, since it can't be said enough, the non-aggression principal is not an unworkable theory or fantasy and it certainly can "order" a society. People live every day of their lives interacting with others without imposing their will without aggression. People do not demand that their neibors buy them things that they want. They do not force their neighbors to live like they think that they should. They do not demand that they live in accordance with their personal opinions.
In real life people live peacefully with one another. They make mutual voluntary agreements. The government should obey the non-aggression principal just like actual humans do. And people should not prod government thugs to do for them that which they know is evil if done by a person.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Normal people live in this way, psychopaths do not.
If the whole of natural rights and freedoms is the set of all actions which are not an initiation of force upon another, what natural rights can be in conflict? The "conflict" will occur when one initiates force upon another, and initiation of force is not a natural right.
In real life people live peacefully with one another. They make mutual voluntary agreements. The government should obey the non-aggression principal just like actual humans do. And people should not prod government thugs to do for them that which they know is evil if done by a person.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Normal people live in this way, psychopaths do not.
In real life people live together and have complaints about the actions of others. In order to have peace, you have to have a way to settle the disagreements. Laws are one of the ways to settle disagreements.
In real life people live together and have complaints about the actions of others. In order to have peace, you have to have a way to settle the disagreements. Laws are one of the ways to settle disagreements.
In order to have peace, no person has a right to use force to impose their will upon another.
In real life people live together and have complaints about the actions of others. In order to have peace, you have to have a way to settle the disagreements. Laws are one of the ways to settle disagreements.
And if those laws are unjust you break them. It's about defending the rights of the individual. Too many forget and focus on that.
Again, only you are asserting that laws equal force.
Not ALL laws are an initiation of force upon the individual human being. But MOST of them are.
A "law" which would throw say a prostitute in jail when they have made a peaceful voluntary agreement with another person, is an act of aggression against the prostitute by the thug State.
A "law" which would throw say a rapist in jail when they initiated force upon their victim, is a moral retaliatory force against an aggressor.
There is a difference between initiations of force and retaliatory force, the initiations are always immoral and evil, the retaliations against aggressors are just and moral.
The non-aggression principle can always define who is the aggressor and who is the victim. Government, as we see it today, is almost always the aggressor. It is a criminal, immoral, and evil institution that mostly serves to destroy human freedom and garner ever-increasing power to dictate more and more aspects of people's lives.
In terms of international flights there are generally agreements relating to security and safety, which is only to be expected when flying in to another countries airspace and airports.
However in terms of domestic flights, that entirely up to the US.
I take a pen and jab it in the jugular of the armed take their weapon and fight back.
I'll take my chances, I'll go out fighting not on my knees like a nancy boy.
That's the difference between myself and a majority of the populace. I'm not complacent.
Ya'll can do as you please. I'm not going out crying and begging for mercy on my knees.
If you won't act in the face of evil you're just as guilty as they are for enabling them.
Mock me, prove my point for me
I'd rather be a living nancy boy then a dead real man. That's just me.
Again, only you are asserting that laws equal force.
If you disobey an immoral "law", such as resist arrest and punishment for a non crime such as prostitution, government goons will murder you if you resist enough. "Law" should specify only retaliatory force against aggressors. Most "law" is an act of aggression by government upon the individual. Such as forcing you to purchase goods and services for others against your will and against your interests.
If "law" was not a force, it would have absolutely zero effect upon free people acting freely in any way. If you assert "law" is not a force, what is the point of having them at all? No person would ever obey any law which went against their own interests if "law" did not use coercion and aggression upon the individual.
I do not have to "assert" that law is force, that it is force is obvious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
