This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[myrkul]

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.

You're cute.

No, it's not a self-violating principle. Let me explain. NAP stands for Non-Aggression Principle.

Aggression is the initiation of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property. Therefore, the NAP states that starting a fight, or threatening someone, or defrauding them, is immoral. That's all. It's not forcing you to behave in any way. It's merely telling you that behaving in a certain way is wrong, and you should not do it.

Now, by extension, that means that resisting aggression is moral. This means that if you threaten me with force, I can morally respond with proportional force. So, only if you pull a gun on me, do you get shot at. If you feel threatened by this, then that can only mean that you, under normal circumstances, would have pulled a gun on me to get your way. As such, that makes you an immoral person.

All you must do to avoid the use of force, is not initiate it. I'm not threatening you with anything you don't try to use on me, first.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

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.

What Myrkul said, and:

If it is force, and you want to use force to stop us from using NAP, then explain to me by what principle you determine the proper use of force to prevent us from using our alleged force.

Unless you're a pacifist. In which case... Go eat some sushi and drink your Starbucks Mocha-china-double-non-fat-macarina-latte.

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

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.

[kokjo]

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.

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

You don't have to agree to avoid getting your ass kicked, you simply have to not try to kick my ass. Seems fair.

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?

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.

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.

As I said, it's only a threat of force to those who are trying to force others. Agree or not, all you have to do is not swing first, and nobody gets hurt. It's no more a threat to an honest person than a law against murder is.

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

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.

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?

[Schleicher]

Good luck trying to convince everyone that your moral standards are the right ones.

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

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?

[kokjo]

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.

[kokjo]

pyramids ftw!

[myrkul]

Alright, Combo breaker.

Time to explain why it's objectively wrong to aggress.

Answer me one more question, Kokjo:

Who owns you?

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

See, now you're just contradicting yourself.

NAP is survival, because if you do not resist being murdered, you die.