|
always 50 coins per block, would be a good sulotion:
that coin would reach stability, when there are 50 coins lost per 10 minutes, and 50 coins generated per 10 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Alright, Combo breaker.
Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.
Answer me one more question, Kokjo:
Who owns you?
Depends on the moral system, and the society around me. In the little state of Denmark, i own most of me. I see. And If I were to conquer Denmark, and declare that I owned all of you, would that make it the case? You would meet resistance, that is not based on NAP but based on survival. survival is not NAP, and survival is not self-violating. |
|
|
|
Alright, Combo breaker.
Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.
Answer me one more question, Kokjo:
Who owns you?
Depends on the moral system, and the society around me. In the little state of Denmark, i own most of me. |
|
|
|
pyramids ftw!  |
|
|
|
If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.
Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression? as resistance against a oppressive system. I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. How is telling someone that aggression is immoral a form of aggression? A oppressive and aggressive system(that does not support NAP), could find it an act of aggression(with good reasons) to teach people that aggression is wrong. You are taking away the oppressive system's power, they are not happy are that. Except I'm not aggressing against even the most oppressive State by doing that. I'm defending. if the state considers it an aggression, you have violated your own NAP. your own subjective opinion does not matter here, according to the NAP. NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system. On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism. Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid. But I'm not, you see, I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not even forcing them not to do anything. I'm simply informing all parties concerned who is in the moral right.oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not? My decision doesn't play into it. It's objectively immoral to aggress. ...and this is here we disagree, im saying that its subjective. Answer for me these questions:
Is it moral to rape someone?
Is it moral for the woman to resist being raped?
Is it moral to rob someone?
Is it moral to resist the robbery?
Is it moral to murder someone?
Is it moral to resist being murdered?
Generally to all of them: it depends on the moral views of the persons involved, the situation, and the society around them. In the current state of the world: no. yes. no. yes. no. yes. So, if I believe that it's OK to enslave you, that makes it moral? maybe. but you would still not violate the NAP, if you does not agree with it. |
|
|
|
If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.
Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression? as resistance against a oppressive system. I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense. How is telling someone that aggression is immoral a form of aggression? A oppressive and aggressive system(that does not support NAP), could find it an act of aggression(with good reasons) to teach people that aggression is wrong. You are taking away the oppressive system's power, they are not happy are that. NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system. On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism. Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid. But I'm not, you see, I'm not forcing them to do anything. I'm not even forcing them not to do anything. I'm simply informing all parties concerned who is in the moral right.oh, so you decides whats moral and whats not? Answer for me these questions:
Is it moral to rape someone?
Is it moral for the woman to resist being raped?
Is it moral to rob someone?
Is it moral to resist the robbery?
Is it moral to murder someone?
Is it moral to resist being murdered?
Generally to all of them: it depends on the moral views of the persons involved, the situation, and the society around them. In the current state of the world: no. yes. no. yes. no. yes. |
|
|
|
If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people.
Care to explain how telling people that aggression is immoral is a form of aggression? as resistance against a oppressive system. NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system. On the contrary, you can do anything you want, except try to hurt people. That's considerably more freedom than Fascism. Did you see that limitation, you are forcing that unto other, and thereby hurting them. Exactly what you wanted to avoid. |
|
|
|
It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.
Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay". NAP is self-violating. So then when someone comes into my house with a fully functional Star Trek phaser and demands I softly caress their scalp with the special lotion in their hobo napsack, I would be initiating aggression by kicking him in the groin and shooting him with his phaser after I set the phaser to stun? Because that's what you're claiming. Especially the part about the lotion. yes, if he considers NAP an aggression, and what he did is not. It would only be you violation your own principle. i know it sound ridiculous, but its only self referential logic at its best. |
|
|
|
It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.
Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay". NAP is self-violating. No it is not. I have explained why. If you have a better argument than stamping your foot, crossing your arms, and saying "Nuh-uh!" please provide it. i have also explained why, by NAP you are forcing me to agree with you on NAP, or get my ass kicked. it is as simple as that. If i considers NAP a form of aggression, i am allowed by the NAP to the use of force. the NAP is violating it self by indirectly involving other people. NAP is in its core, no more freedom then a fascistic system. We can agree on NAP is good, but make no mistake it is threat of force for a person that does not agree on NAP. |
|
|
|
It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.
Its no better then your picture of the gun with the text "Pay". NAP is self-violating. |
|
|
|
By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.
I think you're confusing the non-aggression principle with pacifism. They are not the same thing. Under NAP, force is acceptable only when consensual or used to uphold someone's natural rights. i know that pacifism is not the same as the non-aggression principle. but if i don't support the NAP and i see it as an aggression, im allowed by your NAP to use force. Pacifism is not self-violating. NAP is self-violating. |
|
|
|
|
By declaring NAP, you have already forced(indirectly; by threat of force) me to behave in a certain way. NAP is a self violating principle.
|
|
|
|
So, for example, you can choose socialism. What you can't do, in a libertarian society, is choose that for other people.
and what if im unhappy with that? I'm sorry if you can't get along without it. But that's not my problem. so you are essentially forcing me, not to force other people? Responding to force with force would be appropriate. You would be the initiator, and anyone responding with force (proportionately) would be defending themselves. and what if i don't subscribe to the NAP. |
|
|
|
So, for example, you can choose socialism. What you can't do, in a libertarian society, is choose that for other people.
and what if im unhappy with that? I'm sorry if you can't get along without it. But that's not my problem. so you are essentially forcing me, not to force other people? Well, we're not forcing you, but if you try to force other people, we'll stop you. with force? |
|
|
|
Tell you what; I let you drive on my road free of charge, if you'll let me drive on yours.
there are now 3 options: A. Allow anyone to pass your road. B. Make separate agreements with every single person on the planet C. A road association(ie. central authority) What makes you think that those are the only options? D. For-profit road company. we was discussing mine, his, and other peoples(entities) roads. A company's road would still have to fit into one of my categories. |
|
|
|
So, for example, you can choose socialism. What you can't do, in a libertarian society, is choose that for other people.
and what if im unhappy with that? I'm sorry if you can't get along without it. But that's not my problem. so you are essentially forcing me, not to force other people? |
|
|
|
Tell you what; I let you drive on my road free of charge, if you'll let me drive on yours.
there are now 3 options: A. Allow anyone to pass your road. B. Make separate agreements with every single person on the planet C. A road association(ie. central authority) |
|
|
|
|
100% happiness is not achievable, if we are not all like dank.
|
|
|
|
So, for example, you can choose socialism. What you can't do, in a libertarian society, is choose that for other people.
and what if im unhappy with that? |
|
|
|
on my little piece of land i will not make roads, and after that abuse others without contributing. i could also begin to take money for passing my 50 meters of road, or other complicated things.
And what will you do when I refuse to pay your toll? Kick my ass? Ha ha ha! you would be trespassing on my private property. American laws(which we have not accepted, i know) says i could shoot you.  So you're okay with killing me for not paying you money? Sounds like I need to avoid Denmark; you're more American than I am. under a law of a liberal society, which im opposed to, i would be allowed to put a bullet in your ass if you trespass. How else would i protect myself or my property, if i don't have a state to do it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
