Those "settlers" were aggressively taking away the property that belonged to the natives. They weren't following NAP. If they asked the natives if they could take that property, and prevent others from using it, the natives would have said "no," and if those settlers had actually been "libertarian" and followed NAP, that would've been the end of that.


Except NAP is not democracy, and NAP is defensive, while the US military is offensive and retaliatory. If the US military lived by the NAP, it would have been based entirely within the US border, with it's international actions only limited to espionage to be aware of any pending attacks. Moreso, it would have to answer to its customers who would be willingly paying to support it, instead of having to answer to no one, because it can be supported by unwilling tax payers, even if they don't support the war. The first strike rule that Bush instituted is the exact oposite of NAP, since it's the act of first aggression.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the NAP, and putting up strawmen to fight your own definition of NAP. The only person you are winning the argument against is yourself. This is why I said you are basically arguing from within your own fantasy world. No one else uses your definitions. (not "laws of nature," "definitions.")


By the way, note, something like 60% to 70% of the US population was against going to war in Iraq. Many extremely against it. Had we had private military, and no government, the forces that invaded Iraq would have had to work really hard to convince their customers that it's in their best interest. Most likely they would have never invaded, because they would have lost 60%+ of their customers. And even if they did invade, they would not have the funding to continue to fight there, since their customers would've abandoned them, and stopped paying their dues. Thanks to our "representative" democracy and tax system, the US military was able to ignore the 60% to 70% and invade, since the only way to abandon supporting the military is to stop being a customer of the US, i.e. renounce your citizenship. And even after they invaded, thanks to forced taxation, everyone continued to financially support the war despite their objections.

TL;DR: Completely opposite to your claim, NAP would have likely prevented the war that a non-NAP democratic government started.
How's that statist government thing for you now, huh?

I DID answer that. I said, explain to me how I am controlling you by telling you that you are allowed to leave your room, and I have no intention or interest in stopping you. You keep claiming that the idea/principle of "I won't bother you if you won't bother me (aka NAP)" is controlling. That would mean that me not telling you where to go is controlling, too. Tell me how I am controling you by telling you this?

You also seem to be conflating morals with beliefs. There aren't moral beliefs. Something is either moral, or it's not. If a law says that it's ok to sacrifice some unwilling virgin, and everyone believes it's ok, that still doesn't make it moral. If you believe it does, then we again have a problem of you having your own made-up reality.


Religion is based on faith. Please tell me what about the idea that "don't attack me, I won't attack you, but if you do attack me, I'll defend myself" is based on faith? They are factual statements, explaining factual outcomes of a given situation. Or is your strawman about "It'll be chaos!" the faith part?


"Alternative NAPs???" Are you making up your own definitions of NAP?

Ok, here's the deal. 5 is a number that denotes this many objects * * * * *. That's the definition of 5 that the real, rational world as a whole agrees on. If you can give me a "5 that can not coexist with alternative 5" I'll admit you are right. Though I suspect to do that, you would have to make up a whole new definition of 5 that no one else in the real world uses.
In short, you are arguing against a definition. If you want to argue against an outcome in a society based on accepting that definition as it's principle rule, then do so. Don't say stupid shit like "Alternative NAPs." No such thing, just like there aren't "alternative 5's". If you think that a society that is based on "don't mess with me, I won't mess with you" will not work, then say exactly why it would not work, with your own example (such as, "without laws, everyone will go on a killing spree," or some such), but understand that people who are not following the NAP principle are not following the NAP principle. They are following their own whatever, in violation of NAP, not an alternative NAP.

Yes. Yes it would.

After getting the check, there is still the issue of finding a bank to deposit it into, wait for it to clear, get set up to send a whole bunch of transactions to a lot of different people, some of the transactions being tens of thousands of dollars. For large sums he may have to set up the AML and KYC stuff for the new bank, too, since the new bank might balk at him trying to send so much money to otherwise anonymous people.

By "controlling" I guess you mean "buying and selling on the open market?" That method of manipulating prices doesn't really work, since it results in selling your stash to others on the market, who will just take your thrown away money and keep it.

I don't think he can loose. He doesn't accept reality, and thus is literally impossible to debate with. The only way he can lose or win is if we accept his fantasy as reality, and argue within that, but then all we would do is try to win an argument about fantasy. It'll be like arguing about semantics of Star Wars or something.

Why is there someone in the middle? What happens if you and Bob connect directly? Why can't the quit order be sent when both parties sign something saying they are satisfied with the trade?

You have a very unusual definition of "religion" and "exposed," but ok  


(I think in general population, what you call "exposed" is actually called "ignored due to confirmation bias")

Time to commission a furry artist?

Wait, the Mormon Church??? I thought the Illuminati were eliminated shortly after the Renaissance, after helping to bring it? Are they still around? I'd love to join.

I'm guessing myrkul couldn't impregnate his wife while she was still pregnant with another baby. Nice catch!

Wanted to see if Rule 34 held up to this, so Googled "don't tread on me rule 34." I think I found Kokjo's and blahblahblah's flag




P.S. If you're wondering, I didn't find "porn of it." Rule 34 fail.

I finally started actual real work on my Bitcoin business, and put together a Gantt chart mapping out development, charted out the database structures, and started learning Python so I can help code it. After months of hoping and planning, it's nice to see something actually start being built.

Also, my MAGLEV business partner and I figured out how to make construction of the MAGLEV motor much easier to build and maintain. And he's almost done making a Blender build and render of the motor. Once he's done, we'll finally have something to demonstrate to companies, and will start traveling around the country, meeting with execs in order to try to sell our tech.

So, all in all, yay!  

Pot calling kettle black?

Wait wait wait... I was pretty sure the Illuminati worshiped science, reason, and progress, not the devil. Hell, I think most of them were agnostic or atheist. Their name itself means "to illuminate" or "those who illuminate," and the group was established to fight the church and bring a stop to The Dark Ages. They can't have worshiped the devil, since they didn't even believe the devil existed!

Admittedly, it's nice to see a contrast between our current and our previous presidents. When 9/11 happened, Senate passed the Homeland Security Act, and Bush invaded Iraq, built Guantanamo, and tried to legalize torture. Since the Boston bombing happened, Obama hasn't really pushed for anything, and recently started to push even harder to try to close Guantanamo and finally give its residents a fair trial. Maybe America learned its lesson and is moving in the right direction?

That will be done as soon as someone figures out how to P2P cash transactions. After two years, there's still no answer to that one.

I'd be careful with that one. There are a lot of philosophical beliefs that are kinda of.................

Stop asking for leaders and governors. You are the P in P2P. Act like it 

[/thread]