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 you send your henchmen to kill others do they ever fight back? Do you believe they have the right to fight back?
Do you believe you do? You gonna go murder some random cops in self defense? Or is your "the state is inflicting violence on me" spiel long on talk and light on action?
Also, quit using the word "murder". That's a legal term and therefore fictional. Well, to us logical folks.
Laws exist, ergo legal terms exist. You not agreeing that laws SHOULD exist does not wipe them out of existence. That's magical thinking on the level of people who think Noahs Ark was a real thing that happened. I don't believe in God (s) but I don't go around saying the Bible doesn't exist.
Laws exist, ergo legal terms exist. You not agreeing that laws SHOULD exist does not wipe them out of existence. That's magical thinking on the level of people who think Noahs Ark was a real thing that happened. I don't believe in God (s) but I don't go around saying the Bible doesn't exist.
Laws may exist to you. God may exist to you. Flying dogs may exist to you. But you have no right to enforce that on me.
Will you watch this either now or later and share your thoughts with me? It's only 12 minutes.
If I member to come back to it, not gonna watch it now. BTW I never said it is impossible to be in a situation where you would be justified shooting a cop. I said that under your beliefs you are ALWAYS justified in shooting a cop.
I pointed out under your paradigm of belief that:
Postulate A) force is only justified in accordance with the NAP
Postulate B) because you have not consented the state is in a state of continuous aggression on you
Postulate C) all members and contributors to the state share partial responsibility for this aggression
Postulate D) thus according to the NAP, you are justified in using force against ANY member or contributor to the state at ANY time
If I member to come back to it, not gonna watch it now. BTW I never said it is impossible to be in a situation where you would be justified shooting a cop. I said that under your beliefs you are ALWAYS justified in shooting a cop.
I pointed out under your paradigm of belief that:
Postulate A) force is only justified in accordance with the NAP
Postulate B) because you have not consented the state is in a state of continuous aggression on you
Postulate C) all members and contributors to the state share partial responsibility for this aggression
Postulate D) thus according to the NAP, you are justified in using force against ANY member or contributor to the state at ANY time
You are thinking like a possible AnCap now because this is something we even debate. That's why I want you to watch the video when you get a chance. Don't worry. I've watched it and your henchmen know via monitoring my cyber footprint and they haven't killed me for it. You should be fine.
Do you believe you do? You gonna go murder some random cops in self defense? Or is your "the state is inflicting violence on me" spiel long on talk and light on action?
As long as no one is directly instigating violence against me, I have no right under natural law to commit violence against them.
While the State itself is inherently violent, individual agents are not culpable unless they commit violence on behalf of the State.
You are thinking like a possible AnCap now because this is something we even debate. That's why I want you to watch the video when you get a chance. Don't worry. I've watched it and your henchmen know via monitoring my cyber footprint and they haven't killed me for it. You should be fine.
I always think like a possible anything as long as a good enough argument can be made for it, and that is to say a good argument by my own judgement.
Right now to convince me that your way is they way to go, you need to make it:
Practical/workable - no pie in the sky, concrete defined mechanisms of how to make it happen
Non circular, non self defeating
And your delivery sucks, not insanely relevant for me if the argument is good enough, most people are not as tolerant of being called cowards and murderers just for waking up in the morning and going about their day to day however. And when you are as small of a minority as ancaps, you gonna need every advantage you can get if you want to be effective at invoking change.
Question is, are you a true believer/crusader or do you just like being on the trolly fringe so you can throw shade at everyone?
Laws exist, ergo legal terms exist. You not agreeing that laws SHOULD exist does not wipe them out of existence. That's magical thinking on the level of people who think Noahs Ark was a real thing that happened. I don't believe in God (s) but I don't go around saying the Bible doesn't exist.
The Bible is tangible; you can buy one at the store. The State's arbitrary laws are not, which is why, like belief in God, Statism is a religion.
Natural Law is tangible, as we already know it is wrong to murder, rape, assault, rob, trespass, or lie.
You are thinking like a possible AnCap now because this is something we even debate. That's why I want you to watch the video when you get a chance. Don't worry. I've watched it and your henchmen know via monitoring my cyber footprint and they haven't killed me for it. You should be fine.
I always make a distinction between direct and indirect violence.
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.