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

[Walter Rothbard]

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.

You are contradicting yourself with this sentence.  It doesn't matter if the state (or anyone) considers defense "aggression."  It isn't.

[Walter Rothbard]

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 quite different.  In one case, the gun is holstered, the owner is smiling, and he says the gun would only come out if you initiated force.  In the other, the gun is being used to enslave.

Same result. I know that its still a threat even when its holstered.

I see no need to continue this further.  Let's just smile and engage in commerce with Bitcoins together.

[kokjo]

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.

You are contradicting yourself with this sentence.  It doesn't matter if the state (or anyone) considers defense "aggression."  It isn't.

define aggression!

[kokjo]

Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.

If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it?

yes, but you can't come up with one.

Not all slaves wants to be free.

You are a fine example of this fact. You're fighting very hard not to be free.

oh. i want to.
 im fighting for all them who does not want to, but you are trying to force freedom upon.

Nobody is forcing freedom on anyone.

you are.

[Walter Rothbard]

A true pacifist would have to support the non-aggression principle; pacifism is a superset of NAP.

Consistent pacifists certainly couldn't support the use of force to do any of the things that government does.

There have actually been many great pacifist thinkers who have made great contributions to libertarian thought, such as Leo Tolstoy.

I hear what you're saying, but obviously we'd part ways with pacifists when it comes to self-defense. Therefore I can't say I'd categorize NAP as a subset of pacifism, but rather as a competing philosophy.

To clarify:

Pacifism, as a set of restrictions on one's behavior, is a superset of NAP.  The Pacifism set of restrictions contains all the restrictions of NAP, and more.

Contrast that with the set of Pacifists (people) and the set of people subscribing to NAP.  In this case, it's the other way around.

[Walter Rothbard]

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.

You are contradicting yourself with this sentence.  It doesn't matter if the state (or anyone) considers defense "aggression."  It isn't.
[/quote
define aggression!

I did.

[myrkul]

Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.

If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it?

yes, but you can't come up with one.

Big words, from someone so intentionally small-minded.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb

Not all slaves wants to be free.

You are a fine example of this fact. You're fighting very hard not to be free.

oh. i want to.
 im fighting for all them who does not want to, but you are trying to force freedom upon.

Nobody is forcing freedom on anyone.

you are.

Nope, I'm not.

And for that matter, if you're fighting for the oppressed, why have all your arguments been from the perspective of the oppressors?

[kokjo]

Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.

If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it?

yes, but you can't come up with one.

Big words, from someone so intentionally small-minded.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb

book assumes secularism.

[myrkul]

Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.

If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it?

yes, but you can't come up with one.

Big words, from someone so intentionally small-minded.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb

book assumes secularism.

Well, you did want rational, did you not? A big bearded sky-man telling you to be nice is not very rational.

[freedomno1]

Wondering if we are the same as the olden days
Then perhaps the liberals now will be the conservatives later with bitcoins
^_^
Meaning that as bitcoin becomes more accepted the conservatives will become more liberal at accepting bitcoin and we will become more conservative on the preservation of bitcoin

[kokjo]

Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.

If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it?

yes, but you can't come up with one.

Big words, from someone so intentionally small-minded.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb

book assumes secularism.

Well, you did want rational, did you not? A big bearded sky-man telling you to be nice is not very rational.

but could be true. the world in it self is inconsistent.

Ground rule #8
I respect your intelligence enough to refrain from defining words like “reality,” “reason,” “integrity” and so on. We have enough work to do without having to reinvent the wheel.

for a correct proof you should have very clear definitions, this is not. and the author is even telling me that im stupid...

this is gonna be fun.

[myrkul]

Wondering if we are the same as the olden days
Then perhaps the liberals now will be the conservatives later with bitcoins
^_^
Meaning that as bitcoin becomes more accepted the conservatives will become more liberal at accepting bitcoin and we will become more conservative on the preservation of bitcoin

More confusion. I'm going to ban the use of "liberal" and "conservative" in my house for anything other than their literal meanings.

"Apply that butter liberally to the toast."
"Be conservative with that toothpaste, we're almost out."

[myrkul]

Ground rule #8
I respect your intelligence enough to refrain from defining words like “reality,” “reason,” “integrity” and so on. We have enough work to do without having to reinvent the wheel.

for a correct proof you should have very clear definitions, this is not. and the author is even telling me that im stupid...

this is gonna be fun.

If you are so bad at English that you think "I respect your intelligence" is telling you that you're stupid, then perhaps we need to break off conversation until you're actually conversant in English.

He's saying the definitions do not need to be restated, because you're smart enough to know them already.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

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.

You are contradicting yourself with this sentence.  It doesn't matter if the state (or anyone) considers defense "aggression."  It isn't.

define aggression!

Defense is the maintenance of freedom, either on one's own behalf or on behalf of another. Aggression is initiating the use of one's freedom to suppress the freedom of another.

Defense is not aggression.

And we can say empirically that when everyone's freedom is equally maintained that optimal freedom across the board is reached, thereby making the NAP the most efficient method of ensuring perpetually superior conditions for society.

If you don't want superior conditions or freedom, then there is nothing stopping you from volunteering your conditions/freedom to someone else to maintain your desired state. No one is going to come and take you away against your will and put you inside a million dollar mansion.

Now if you come and try to take me out of my million dollar mansion, then in accordance with the NAP, I will defend my freedom against yours. That is completely consistent.

[kokjo]

Ground rule #8
I respect your intelligence enough to refrain from defining words like “reality,” “reason,” “integrity” and so on. We have enough work to do without having to reinvent the wheel.

for a correct proof you should have very clear definitions, this is not. and the author is even telling me that im stupid...

this is gonna be fun.

If you are so bad at English that you think "I respect your intelligence" is telling you that you're stupid, then perhaps we need to break off conversation until you're actually conversant in English.

ground rule #8 is a coward's of saying everything i say from now on will only be vaguely defined. "I respect your intelligence" means that im stupid, when i want clear definitions, its just a more nice way to say it. I want him to piss on my intelligence and give me clear definitions.

[yolo2222]

Americans? 

[myrkul]

Ground rule #8
I respect your intelligence enough to refrain from defining words like “reality,” “reason,” “integrity” and so on. We have enough work to do without having to reinvent the wheel.

for a correct proof you should have very clear definitions, this is not. and the author is even telling me that im stupid...

this is gonna be fun.

If you are so bad at English that you think "I respect your intelligence" is telling you that you're stupid, then perhaps we need to break off conversation until you're actually conversant in English.

ground rule #8 is a coward's of saying everything i say from now on will only be vaguely defined. "I respect your intelligence" means that im stupid, when i want clear definitions, its just a more nice way to say it. I want him to piss on my intelligence and give me clear definitions.

If you want clear definitions of the words he uses, consult a dictionary. As he said, "We have enough work to do without having to reinvent the wheel."

[kokjo]

However, there exists in our minds an imaginary entity called “God,” and this entity is considered perfectly moral. Unfortunately, this entity continually and grossly violates the edict that “violence is wrong” by drowning the world, consigning souls to hell despite a perfect foreknowledge of their
“decisions,” sanctioning rape, murder, theft, assault and other actions that we would condemn as utterly evil in any individual.

christian god? okay... i read on...

[freedomno1]

Wondering if we are the same as the olden days
Then perhaps the liberals now will be the conservatives later with bitcoins
^_^
Meaning that as bitcoin becomes more accepted the conservatives will become more liberal at accepting bitcoin and we will become more conservative on the preservation of bitcoin

More confusion. I'm going to ban the use of "liberal" and "conservative" in my house for anything other than their literal meanings.

"Apply that butter liberally to the toast."
"Be conservative with that toothpaste, we're almost out."

Well then
Buy those bitcoins said the liberal I will not said the conservative
But slowly as the word of mouth spread those conservatives started to buy bitcoins
While the liberals wanted to save bitcoins

[kokjo]

ah ha! he needed 3 pages to explain the law of the excluded middle. and now he is explaining(not defining) reality, the differences between subjectivity  and objectivity, and what metematical reasoning is...

the author also seems way too libertarian biased to be having a sane and intellectual discussion with.

so far, this is not a proof, its propaganda(and he knew i would say that, babbling about round vs. flat earth).