Stefan Molyneux: Lymphoma

[kokjo]

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.

So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?

[Anon136]

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.

So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?

the point is that you shouldnt have a problem with being "forced" to not be aggressive. Because for the other person that is called self defense. And yes people have the right to defend themselves.

[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!

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

No, but i could ignore your polite request for compensation. and when you aggress against me to force me to pay, you would be breaking the NAP.

[kokjo]

Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.

[myrkul]

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.

So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?

No, You're free to not respect the NAP. Just don't expect protection under it if you don't. If you're going to be acting antisocially, why should society keep you around?

[hawkeye]

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.

Just to clarify this, there is obviously no way to enforce the NAP in a free society, right?  Obviously, there is no central authority and thus no central law as such.  People would be free to agree with it or not.

It's just that you would have security companies enforcing property rights.   And they would hire arbitration companies for disputes between different customers of different companies.  Or something along those lines.

[myrkul]

Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.

See, The US is not a NAP based society. It's based instead on the Constitution, which guarantees criminals a swift and fair trial.

[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.

No, but i could ignore your polite request for compensation. and when you aggress against me to force me to pay, you would be breaking the NAP.

We do not believe that using violence to acquire just compensation from an aggressor is a form of aggression. In the same way that not all violence is aggression because some violence is defensive. Using violence to uphold justice is similarly not aggression.

[kokjo]

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.

So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?

No, You're free to not respect the NAP. Just don't expect protection under it if you don't. If you're going to be acting antisocially, why should society keep you around?

in other words: respect the NAP or die. i feel the gun to my head now, but sure sure its my choice.

Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.

See, The US is not a NAP based society. It's based instead on the Constitution, which guarantees criminals a swift and fair trial.

yeah we all know that the US is a bunch of hypocrites, but you should be like: Hey man lets kill the fucker that took down WTC.

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.

Just to clarify this, there is obviously no way to enforce the NAP in a free society, right?  Obviously, there is no central authority and thus no central law as such.  People would be free to agree with it or not.

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

[kokjo]

We do not believe that using violence to acquire just compensation from an aggressor is a form of aggression. In the same way that not all violence is aggression because some violence is defensive. Using violence to uphold justice is similarly not aggression.

oh, justice, you mean enforcement of arbitrary rules? who's rules?

[hawkeye]

We do not believe that using violence to acquire just compensation from an aggressor is a form of aggression. In the same way that not all violence is aggression because some violence is defensive. Using violence to uphold justice is similarly not aggression.

But violence is always a last resort.   In a free society you would have contracts which obliged people to go to arbitration when there are disputes I would think.

Unless, someone didn't have there own security provider.   But I would think that would be as rare as not having utility providers like water and electricity.

[myrkul]

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.

So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?

No, You're free to not respect the NAP. Just don't expect protection under it if you don't. If you're going to be acting antisocially, why should society keep you around?

in other words: respect the NAP or die. i feel the gun to my head now, but sure sure its my choice.

Let's expand some of these words, so maybe you can see how silly you sound.

"In other words, respect the principle that I have no right to initiate the use of force against another person or have force used against me. I feel the gun to my head now, but sure sure it's my choice."

So, you want to be able to use force against other people, without them being able to use force against you, right?

[hawkeye]

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.  

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours.  In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government.  Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

[hawkeye]

 

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

Oh and it would be enforced.  Through the protection of property rights when you sign a contract with a security company.

[kokjo]

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.  

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours.  In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government.  Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

[hawkeye]

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.  

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours.  In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government.  Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

Some would, there is no doubt.  I have never doubted nor claimed that security wouldn't be needed.   People should have the choice though and not be forced to pay a monopoly protection racket.

[Anon136]

We do not believe that using violence to acquire just compensation from an aggressor is a form of aggression. In the same way that not all violence is aggression because some violence is defensive. Using violence to uphold justice is similarly not aggression.

oh, justice, you mean enforcement of arbitrary rules? who's rules?

If you are on your own property and you are doing crazy stuff than dont be surprised if bad things happen to you and no one really cares to attempt to punish the person who does bad things to you, after all why should they. If you are on someone elses property and doing things that they dont like, than you will be asked to leave. if you refuse to leave than they will pay someone to make you leave. if you try to pay someone to prevent the legitimate property owner from making you leave than you would find it prohibitively expensive.

if you defraud people and refuse to pay just compensation. Even though a person could hire some mussle to take back his property much more cheaply than you could possably expect to hire people to defend your illegitimate claim. People would most likely find that social ostracism was more than enough to protect against fraudsters.

[myrkul]

So you've pretty much described how and why the State helps to guarantee people's freedom.
Freedom from lynch mobs.
Freedom from "law of the jungle" mob 'justice'.
Freedom from persecution based on past behaviour. While past behaviour may still be taken into account, the process is formalised so that everyone is treated as fairly as possible.
Freedom from witch-hunts.

Justice: another point that An-Cap sucks at.

The state doesn't guarantee any of that. It just claims a monopoly on it.

[kokjo]

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.  

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours.  In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government.  Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

Some would, there is no doubt.  I have never doubted nor claimed that security wouldn't be needed.   People should have the choice though and not be forced to pay a monopoly protection racket.

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

[myrkul]

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

A protection racketeer cannot tolerate competition within his sphere of influence from another racketeer.