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.
The ignorant and bigoted Paul was a Republican for a reason. His earnest demeanor and sincere-sounding rhetoric might've been enough to trick some suckers into supporting him, but his policies only benefited those at the top.
Thumbs down anytime Ron Paul is mentioned. This is his legacy...and don't you forget it either.
The NAP fails the logic test and the practicality test. Practically, you will have one or more collectives who won't give a damn about the NAP, which defeats the entire purpose. Logically, suggesting a government's action is initiated by someone or something other than themselves is nonsensical. You are actually voicing support for the violation of the NAP when someone else violates the NAP. Enforcement of the NAP is a violation of the NAP.
So if there's a group that ignores the NAP, how does that defeat the purpose of the NAP? If they initiate force against you, you use force back to stop them.
I'm not sure what your third sentence means...
The last sentence is wrong, and I just explained why in my last post. Self-defense doesn't violate the NAP. The NAP is against the initiation of force, not simply the use of force.
What initiated your theft? Your free will based on any number of circumstances you deem important. What initiates the police arresting you? Their free will based on any number of circumstances they themselves deem important.
This is the problem, you can not grasp basic logic, you are not alone, most libertarians cant either.
Let me see if I understand basic logic. Attacking a country that never did anything to us?
So if there's a group that ignores the NAP, how does that defeat the purpose of the NAP?
Um, you answered your own question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
If they initiate force against you, you use force back to stop them.
You want to pretend your reaction to the force is not initiated by you. I guess you do not accept we are all responsible and have the ability to control our own actions. You can not have a reaction unless you initiate it, otherwise it's impossible to have a reaction. You fail to recognize they are two separate actions that requires initiative from both sides.
Quote:
The last sentence is wrong, and I just explained why in my last post. Self-defense doesn't violate the NAP. The NAP is against the initiation of force, not simply the use of force.
How do you use ANY kind of force without initiating it?
Let me see if I understand basic logic. Attacking a country that never did anything to us?
As I told the other person, all instances of force has to be initiated by the person/government/entity using it, irrelevant of the motives or circumstances involved. You want to focus on the circumstance with out acknowledging this simple fact. You are arguing that you are allowed to initiate force to stop someone else from initiating force.
The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom) is a moral principle that prohibits the initiation of force by one person against another. It is considered by many to be the defining principle of libertarianism.
Quote:
The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom) is a moral principle that prohibits the initiation of force by one person against another. It is considered by many to be the defining principle of libertarianism. The principle asserts that aggression, a term defined by proponents as any encroachment on another person's life, liberty, or justly acquired property, or an attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained, is always illegitimate. According to some libertarians the NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.[citation needed]
it is rather clear cut, force is forbidden in Libetarisim, unless you want to break the NAP. Arresting someone is an encroachment of liberty. Arresting someone is initiating force, irrelevant of the reasons you are arresting that person. Nowhere in the definition and explanation does it give a reason to use force. Those who think they are legitimately using force are thereby making exceptions to the rule or more commonly reffered to as Moral relativism. The view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves.
Last edited by billydaman; 09-15-2015 at 11:57 PM..
As I told the other person, all instances of force has to be initiated by the person/government/entity using it, irrelevant of the motives or circumstances involved. You want to focus on the circumstance with out acknowledging this simple fact. You are arguing that you are allowed to initiate force to stop someone else from initiating force.
In my example to you it had already been initiated before the government initiated it. Hence the position statement.
it is rather clear cut, force is forbidden in Libetarisim, unless you want to break the NAP. Arresting someone is an encroachment of liberty. Arresting someone is initiating force, irrelevant of the reasons you are arresting that person. Nowhere in the definition and explanation does it give a reason to use force. Those who think they are legitimately using force are thereby making exceptions to the rule or more commonly reffered to as Moral relativism. The view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves.
In my example to you it had already been initiated before the government initiated it. Hence the position statement.
Yes, I know you believe deep down the thief initiated other peoples use of force. I guess he has some kind of mind-control of other peoples actions. I wonder what initiated the thief's actions, my guess that is, ironically, it is irrelevant.
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.
