Every lolbertarian explains the NAP differently.
What is the NAP and why would or should anyone care?
Every lolbertarian explains the NAP differently. What is the NAP and why would or should anyone care?
Every lolbertarian explains the NAP differently.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Here is my own detailed explanation then:
Suck my dick
*shlurrp* ....... *shluup* ....... *shluppp* .. **let's the head out and kisses it** . You like that daddy?
>neighbor's kid retrieves his ball from your yard
>he violated the NAP, you are legally allowed to shoot him as a trespasser
Is my understanding
Being shot for things like telling jokes about your overlords or selling grass to willing individuals is the specialty of statists rather.
>Being shot for telling jokes about your landlords or selling grass to willing individuals in the company break room is the specialty
Wrong. Redress for NAP is based on proportionality
>Redress for NAP is based on proportionality
And who is going to enforce that?
Right libertarians typically believe it will take the form of competing private defense agency. I think it is more likely there will be a community constable for local matters. I think private defense agencies would be a niche thing for businesses.
What happens when the CEO of Walmart hires Arasaka to enforce some paid judge's court order on the CEO of JP Morgan who hires Militech to guard them?
idk about your anime references but rich guys have essentially always lived in a libertarian world with the problem you - I imagine - describe. We say that everybody deserves to be just as free and have just the same "problems".
I can one hundred percent guarantee you browse reddit.com
Force means force I don't like. If I like it, then it's not force.
It stands for Non-Aggression Principle and it's the backbone of the legal system as envisioned by Libertarians. Essentially, leave people alone unless they're actively causing harm to others, is the overarching guiding ideal. There's a range of interpretations of this ideal based on how averse different people are to the existence of regulation and government. For people who consider themselves to be anarchists, they'll try to abolish as many government institutions as they can. But in the United States, mainstream Libertarians are fine with government in principle, they just want its regulatory apparatuses trimmed down (i.e. auditing and closing down some bureaus), and many of its prohibitive laws repealed.
The Libertarian ideal in the US can be summarized as a desire to remove bureaucratic institutions which exist largely to exact fines and fees from people by passing an ever increasing amount of prohibitions on the public, and replace them with courts that serve to redress and mediate disputes between citizens.
A major tenet of Libertarian belief is that democratic processes are fundamentally subject to corruption so it is better to disperse effective power as widely as possible to mitigate the effects of corruption and to also make corrupt officials more immediately answerable to the people. Centralizing power means you only have to bribe a handful of people to pass sweeping legislation that covers the whole country. Decentralizing means you now have to bribe potentially hundreds of people, and get them to coordinate across dozens of different legislatures. And these officials might not be as keen on selling out their constituents when they are actually neighbors with them and will have these people quite literally on their doorstep if they pass something people don't like. Corruption will still happen, it just won't be a huge ordeal that requires a national effort to overturn, it can be handled in city hall.
>The Libertarian ideal in the US can be summarized as a desire to remove bureaucratic institutions which exist largely to exact fines and fees from people by passing an ever increasing amount of prohibitions on the public
That's disingenuous, libertarianism I'm the us is about removing any and all law so you can get high and have child sex slaves without consequence
It's just your own fantasy you idiot, children have _more_ rights in libertarianism than in the current system when they actually _are_ slaves till their "age of majority". They have been also fucked at will in all compulsory governmental and church "orphanages".
Belgium didn't have driving licenses till 1970s with no issues btw you monkey slave.
So you actually are against drivers licenses?
the average retarded roastie who can't park their car and drives while texting on her phone and is a danger to everyone manages to get a license while someone who accelerates "too fast" even when perfectly legal and safe fails the test because he didn't drive like a granny
What the fucking idiotic question it is, of course I am "against".
Driving wouldn't be the leading cause of deaths if roads were being managed by private companies (instead of corrupt bureaucrats) which on the free market would have to make it safer decades ago.
why would "the free market have to make it safer" if there are no laws or regulation forcing them to?
If you have more deaths then you have less paying customers
I have to ask you, do you actually believe the things you write? Are you genuinely unaware that a cost benefit analysis could determine that it's more cost effective to offer a dangerous product that causes some of your clients to die, than make a product that's safer but more expensive? This is a legal principle called the Learned Hand negligence formulation.
You should look into some of the larger pharmaceutical scandals. They literally let their customers die because it's profitable to do so.
You are clueless, pharmaceutical companies are getting away with that because they have "legal" (state) exemptions from litigations. And they will be bailed out by their bought off politicians in worst case.
are you saying libertarianworld doesn't follow the doctrine caveat emptor? If there is no FDA what guarantee do you have that drugs even are what they say they are?
Libertarians follow caveat emptor. Independent ratings agencies and reviewing systems can do the FDA's job. You realize the FDA does practically nothing, right? They have a massive backlog and will literally just not release approval unless political clout is wielded. One of our more dysfunctional agencies, and that's saying something.
>Independent ratings agencie
Paid for by whom? How does a consumer know which are legitimate and which are just shills?
Rest assured that FDA are just shills paid by corporations.
Why didn't you answer the question? (Protip: it's ok to admit you don't know).
You are pressing and baiting hard I must admit.
When there are many competing rating agencies you can at least choose the one you trust but if there is only one it will surely be bought off and there is nothing the consumers could do about it.
>You are pressing and baiting hard I must admit.
cont btw - why don't you show the same zeal and scrutiny about the current statist bordello?
Your static 1 dimensional thinking is retarded. You're trying to assign a system to all situations at once and neglect the difference time makes, as well as external competition and internal issues.
Competing companies will compete until somebody dominates, then we're back at square one.
You also assume that the users of the products are rational and perfectly educated, and you assume that companies work in the best interests of the consumer, which is false.
Your system has always resulted in huge inequality. You're irrationally supporting something which will make you poorer, with less access to decision making and influence.
The rating of rating agencies would actually be trivial; you would check like, for example: which rating agency has once approved the use of DDT on children beds? Ah, ok, I won't trust this one anymore.
And who pays for all this research and management of said services?
The same people as today but the free market would make it cheaper by definition. The free market price is the price with the highest possible volume of trade (of goods or services) - by definition. Obviously nothing except the cheese in a mousetrap is free and information has a price as well.
ok so in libertarianland how does a child sex slave actually assert their rights?
You are focusing on your sexual deviations too much - I've heard that there are places on the internet where you can "discuss" these things at will so gtfo.
It is a legitimate question, answer it if you can. How do children defend themselves when the NAP is violated against them?
They walk away and there is _no_ state apparatus to catch them and bring them back. An attempt of kidnaping is dealt with on expected basis by private security and court system.
>They walk away
what if they're being confined against their will?
>dealt with on expected basis by private security and court system
what does that mean? How does a child being held against their will and with no assets access these things? Also what is this court system? What power and authority does it have to enforce any decisions it makes?
Read a book if you are interested, I am not going to attempt to explain the whole civilizational settings to you in a few internet posts.
because clearly you can't. You don't even believe in your own fantasy, do you?
It's not fantasy you moron, the system of arbitrary private courts has been the only one which "regulated" historical trade - and the international trade is still operating without any court having formal, state, jurisdiction over both parties.
I clearly can but I won't bother to write an essay for a clueless idiot, that's it.
Are you really not aware that international trade is governed by formal national courts of law? And you call me a clueless idiot. I don't know why I expected anything resembling intelligence from a deranged anarchist like you.
Neither the American court nor the Chinese court has the jurisdiction when you buy things on amazon.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Interactive websites are considered purposeful availment by us courts, meaning just using a website is enough to establish in personam jurisdiction. Its called the zippo doctrine.
Listen you moron - one party (or both) has to _specifically_ agree to be subject to specific jurisdiction prior to the transaction taking place. That's the point. This is the difference between regular judicial operations.
cont. And _if_ the Chinese says "fuck you" then what the American judiciary is going to do about it?
No they don't, if I sue amazon and they don't show up then a default judgment will be entered against them.
>children have more rights
>ask 3 year old if you can rape their asshole
>they don't know shit, say yes
>rape their asshole
Guys, libertarianism is _not_ for you, I kindly ask you again to gtfo.
The whole reason liberalism in general exists is to tolerate the differences that exist between people. To say that libertarianism is _not_ for someone is antithetical to libertarianism so long as they're not violating the NAP.
They already have all their _fucking_ freedom in the current bordello. We need people with brains and not sexual deviants which look for more.
I see the main freedoms a child would assert against their parents today and i don't see lolbertarians supporting any of them
prove driving licenses are good. I've never had one and drive illegally and have never been in an accident
Every law is a non-aggression policy. What is considered aggression or trespass depends on the ruler
Like wearing a seatbelt
>high IQ response explaining the difference between libertarianism and ancap
>replies just repeat the ancap strawman
There are definitely some flaws and issues with libertarianism, but from what I've seen on internet "debates" opponents can't discuss even the basics without sharting on everything so obviously there is something to it.
It is pretty obvious democracy leads to mob rule allowing the majority to impose their will over minorities, it is a fact very apparent to anyone who studies politics impartially yet curiously absent from most discussion. You would think American "progressives" would be acutely aware of this phenomena, since ethnic minorities were once oppressed significantly, however it escapes them. Now they are in power they deem it useful for the media to conglomerate, to promote government corporate ties, ostensibly to achieve their "social justice" vision though realistically to keep the machine politics racket going.
The solution is to place limits, strengthen local government, separate powers, constitutionally enshrine the most important individual freedoms and generally allow people a lot of autonomy unless there is a real pressing need for the state to intervene, but typical liberal and social democracies still lean too heavily towards mob rule. If you want to engage with the global economy of scale rather than slink away to a cabin in the rockies, you will find yourself immersed in a world of bureaucracy with no apparent purpose and brainwashed soibs who claim to be tolerant, diverse and inclusive yet look at you as though you have broken into their home and taken a huge steaming shit on their couch if you don't swallow the prolefeed and posit any genuine criticism of the system.
The ideal is somewhere between libertarianism and regular conservatism, maybe an unholy alliance between the religious right and rebellious types can accomplish it.
all religious right want is a government with more control over people's lives, not less
Like what? Abortion, gambling and a few dry counties? Not much in the larger scale of things.
Why are the protests in Iran happening? Could it possibly have something to do with religious right beating a woman to death for showing hair in public?
>but something bad happened on the other side of a planet of 7 billion people
It hasn't been like this in the west for centuries.
Groups like Amish and Mennonites just want to be left alone not spread their religious laws across the whole country, if in the unlikely event they gained state power they might be corrupted by it and start doing so, but they can be contrasted by socialists who are ideologically obliged to be international revolutionaries. It is "workers of the world", not "workers in this particular region". Regardless, if you want to start your own little commune you are free to do so, if you can afford a vegan juice bar I'm sure you and your comrades can pool resources and set up a small farm like the Amish.
An imaginary unbinding principle that Lolbertarians use to cope.
A landowner has the right to tax his subject. A state is an allodial landowner/land.
State doesn't exist and this fiction is not a legitimate owner of anything because it didn't buy, produce or was voluntarily given anything by anybody. This criminal incorporation has robbed everything it exerts its control over.
So like, what do you do if I suddenly start exclaiming with great confidence that all your stuff is actually mine?
We have the homestead principle to recognize legitimate ownership.
All this thread has shown me is that libertarians are anarchists with an extremely naive and underdeveloped utopian ideology that could never work in practice.
Oh, you are so wise!
Your ideology is just a fantasy for pedophiles.
You and those pedophile dreams yet again. Seek professional help maybe?
Just whatever you want, like, who are they to tell you what the NAP is to you? The state?