Stefan Molyneux: Lymphoma

[myrkul]

I understand the NAP, its inconsistent, and i disagree with it. The use of force is useful in some situations, whatever you like it or not.
and killing bad people is not bad, when its done in the best interest of the society. in other words: its perfectly okay to kill people under some circumstances.

Hey, fun fact: the NAP does allow the use of force, even lethal force, under some circumstances.

True. but the NAP says nothing about courts, trials or justice.

Nor does it need to.

[kokjo]

I understand the NAP, its inconsistent, and i disagree with it. The use of force is useful in some situations, whatever you like it or not.
and killing bad people is not bad, when its done in the best interest of the society. in other words: its perfectly okay to kill people under some circumstances.

Hey, fun fact: the NAP does allow the use of force, even lethal force, under some circumstances.

True. but the NAP says nothing about courts, trials or justice.

Nor does it need to.

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

[myrkul]

I understand the NAP, its inconsistent, and i disagree with it. The use of force is useful in some situations, whatever you like it or not.
and killing bad people is not bad, when its done in the best interest of the society. in other words: its perfectly okay to kill people under some circumstances.

Hey, fun fact: the NAP does allow the use of force, even lethal force, under some circumstances.

True. but the NAP says nothing about courts, trials or justice.

Nor does it need to.

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

[kokjo]

I understand the NAP, its inconsistent, and i disagree with it. The use of force is useful in some situations, whatever you like it or not.
and killing bad people is not bad, when its done in the best interest of the society. in other words: its perfectly okay to kill people under some circumstances.

Hey, fun fact: the NAP does allow the use of force, even lethal force, under some circumstances.

True. but the NAP says nothing about courts, trials or justice.

Nor does it need to.

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

he put airplanes into buildings.

[myrkul]

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

he put airplanes into buildings.

But was he aggressing?

[kokjo]

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

he put airplanes into buildings.

But was he aggressing?

trowing two large buildings with people in them into the ground, seems like a pretty aggressive move. Don't you think?

[Schleicher]

I think I can predict what myrkul is going to answer:
Bin Laden did not fly any plane.

[myrkul]

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

he put airplanes into buildings.

But was he aggressing?

trowing two large buildings with people in them into the ground, seems like a pretty aggressive move. Don't you think?

It does. But you've still not answered me. Was he aggressing when he was killed?

[kokjo]

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

he put airplanes into buildings.

But was he aggressing?

trowing two large buildings with people in them into the ground, seems like a pretty aggressive move. Don't you think?

It does. But you've still not answered me. Was he aggressing when he was killed?

i don't think so, no(but "they" said that he was reaching for a gun).

so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?

[myrkul]

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

he put airplanes into buildings.

But was he aggressing?

trowing two large buildings with people in them into the ground, seems like a pretty aggressive move. Don't you think?

It does. But you've still not answered me. Was he aggressing when he was killed?

i don't think so, no(but "they" said that he was reaching for a gun).

Well, if a bunch of armed men burst into your house wouldn't you reach for a gun (assuming you had one, which, as a good Dane, I know you don't)? And if you did reach for a gun, would you be aggressing, or acting in self-defense?

so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?

No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.

[Schleicher]

<irony on>
Yeah, right. When I'm being beaten up all I care about is the money I will get.
<irony off>

[kokjo]

i don't think so, no(but "they" said that he was reaching for a gun).

Well, if a bunch of armed men burst into your house wouldn't you reach for a gun (assuming you had one, which, as a good Dane, I know you don't)? And if you did reach for a gun, would you be aggressing, or acting in self-defense?
[/quote]
in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.

so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?

No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.

are you saying that im forced to repay him?

[myrkul]

<irony on>
Yeah, right. When I'm being beaten up all I care about is the money I will get.
<irony off>

Well, fight back, then, silly.

in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.

I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force.

so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?

No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.

are you saying that im forced to repay him?

No, obligated.

[kokjo]

in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.

I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force.

no, it depends on the point of view. Bin Laden initiated force first, with 2 airplanes. and the US initiated force first too, by invading his home.

perfectly simple.

so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?

No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.

are you saying that im forced to repay him?

No, obligated.

so i could just refuse to pay him, and beat him up again? NICE im beginning to like this NAP stuff.

[myrkul]

in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.

I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force.

no, it depends on the point of view. Bin Laden initiated force first, with 2 airplanes. and the US initiated force first too, by invading his home.

perfectly simple.

Then you're actually talking about two completely separate events, and Bin Laden would be acting entirely in self defense by going for a weapon.

so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?

No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.

are you saying that im forced to repay him?

No, obligated.

so i could just refuse to pay him, and beat him up again? NICE im beginning to like this NAP stuff.

Well, you see, if you refuse to pay him, you're breaking an obligation you voluntarily accepted. That means you're likely to break other obligations. You couldn't be trusted to pay your bills, including that for arbitration and defense. That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked. Given that you started this whole thing by beating some guy up, it seems logical that he would get some friends together, and extract vengeance, since justice is not forthcoming.

When you act outside the social structure, don't be surprised when it doesn't come to your aid.

[kokjo]

That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.

LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.

[myrkul]

That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.

LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[kokjo]

That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.

LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

As soon that the aggressor stops aggressing, no one can do him anything according to the NAP. so any aid i could have got is useless.
also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.

in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!

WIN!

[myrkul]

That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.

LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

As soon that the aggressor stops aggressing, no one can do him anything according to the NAP. so any aid i could have got is useless.
also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.

in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!

WIN!

Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.

In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.

[Anon136]

That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked.

LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

As soon that the aggressor stops aggressing, no one can do him anything according to the NAP. so any aid i could have got is useless.
also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.

in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!

WIN!

if someone damages you or your property than its not aggression to demand just compensation.