/liberty/ - Liberty

The answer is irrelevant because I'm killing any faggot who fucks with me. Once the "evil" goverment is gone them there will be no one protecting those cumskins children and their delicious single mothers from my far-right dick.

>>95204

Of course it's the result. Laws are meant to cover interpersonal interactions between people and the consequences of actions, and the consequences of an action are the same regardless of motivation. It doesn't matter if someone stumbled into my house because he's drunk and mistook it for his own property, or if he's a thief who broke in with the intention of culturally enriching my television. Either way he's a trespasser, and either way he's violated my property rights; the NAP cares not for aesthetics, and I'm entitled to defend my property regardless of the context. The only thing that intention can possibly effect is whom the court assigns to pay restitution for damages done. For example, if the perpetrator is mentally ill, and some care institution has previously taken responsibility for him, then that institution may be the entity that pays the damages rather than the perpetrator.

>you know, similar suffering patterns in neuroactivity are seen both in real suffering (harm done to tissue) and mental suffering (hate-speach).

This is non sequitur and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.

>>95207

>This is non sequitur and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything.

you said result matters

so we have 2 cases of brain imaging showing pain/suffering. 1st case is a tissue damage. 2nd case is a hate speech. so results are the same so i suppose penalty should be the same?

>>95211

Penalty for what? You're waffling on about hate speech causing brain damage or whatever but you haven't specified what alleged crime is taking place, or who the perpetrator is. In any case, "mental suffering" is not a violation of any property rights. Otherwise, every bad review on amazon would be a violation of the NAP because it hurt someone's feelings somewhere, a storeowner being in the red for a quarter would be a violation of the NAP because he feels anguish, every action you take for any reason at all would constitute a crime because someone, somewhere might be offended. Take your feels>reals shit somewhere else. Also, learn proper grammar and capitalize your shit properly, this isn't facebook.

I was going to write a long post about damages, property, the brain and all but then I noticed you said "hate speech" so you're either some normalfag or communist or something. It's an awful meme and I hope my post gives you brain damage.

>>95204

The NAP is not a legal or ethical mandate; it's the way you learn to live in a world where violence is democratized and anyone you fuck over is free to return the favor. Not only is merely intending to break the NAP not illegal or even unethical in any way that you can conceive of; actually following through is not "bad," either. It's simply not in your own best interest, generally speaking. Maybe it pays off this time, and the next time, and the time after that, but on the whole, over time, you will be better served by respecting others' agency than by interfering with it.

I don't understand your argument, but your question is pretty clear. And so is the answer: The action of breaking the NAP is what is immoral/against natural law and would therefore be illegal in ancapistan. The intention, besides almost impossible to determine, not what cayses harm in the first place. And having the intention of doing something is not the same as commanding your body to do it. If I planned to kill you, and later changed my mind, I would have had the intention of killing, but the action never happened and the change of heart can be for any number of reasons, including remembering that it breaks the NAP.

>>95223

did i write that feels>reals? are you retarded?

>>95322

>mental suffering (hate-speach).

Yes, you did.

>>95322

They're retarded. Also, you can legally shoot them in any rational justice system due to their stated position that externalizations resulting in tissue damage doesn't matter.

On the "feels > reals" front, they're just projecting.

>>95325

i did not write that hate speech is bad u moron

>>95347

You did say it's a possible violation of the NAP, though.

>>95353

i asked how do distinguish nap violation from not nap violation

>>95391

If one's action directly caused an even resulting in property violation then it breaks NAP, if it was caused by something else then it did not. Someone causing an avalanche that messed up your house would break NAP if it can be proved that it was his actions that resulted it it. How do you prove it? You could search for evidence yourself or go to a court to find out the nature of the events. You pick the court based on what judge/company you can both agree on, or both of your representatives agree on, etc. if you want further explanation with other situations feel free to ask, though they are all only a possibility due to unpredictable factors like insufficient evidence and court decisions.

>>95392

so slander does not break nap?

>>95427

If the entity performing the slander or libel intimates that it provides the truth to its readers or listeners, then the slander constitutes fraud, which is a violation of the NAP. It's a violation of the NAP because it involves a breach of contract, not because of hurt feelings.

>>95428

Even contract breaches are wrong now.

>>95428

so jokes are illegal now?

>>95469

so "it was a joke" is a viable defense for a fraud now?

>>95206

BASED

>>95428

"I only tell truths" is not a contract. "We're the most trusted news source and we never ever lie" is not a contract. That's social contract tier and the thought deeply unsettles me.

>>95472

4 me it was a joke

>>95582

I'm not sure why you think assertions should be automatically ironclad. Do you hold people to this standard? If someone says "If I have the time I'll stop over and say hi" and they don't stop in and say hi despite the fact that they certainly were alive during that period of time and capable of doing so, do you sue them - or do you want to? Verbal contracts aren't something that should be legally recognized. If it isn't done ceremoniously and with clear definitions there's no point to it at all (though there's more weight on the definitions than the ceremony). Let's assume that "In exchange for your monthly subscription, we will accurately report on happenings in the world to the best of our ability" does constitute a contract for the purposes of punitive action. Let's break the statement down so I can demonstrate how laughably useless it is.

>In exchange for your monthly subscription

>we will accurate report

What is accuracy? 100%? 90%? 10%? Let's assume >50% because that's at least half right. Who is to say their lies are less than half right? If I were to say you spend 30% of your time raping puppies to death and 70% of your time doing other activities. That's probably at least half right, since most of the time you aren't doing that so most of my comment is true. How does one judge accuracy? Who is to say? This is a huge grey area.

>on happenings in the world

Could mean anything but this vagueness is to be expected for a large news organization and has no bearing on truth, or at least I don't think it does.

>to the best of our ability

Now this is where the fun begins. With this line any and all lies, half-truths and misdirections are justified with "Well, we just didn't know". Anything can be asserted and then defended with feigned (or true) ignorance.

>>95702

It doesn't surprise me that the "Christian Anarchist" would allow for sinful thoughts to be punishable by McNuke.

>>95715

>If it isn't done ceremoniously and with clear definitions there's no point to it at all

Implied contracts are a well-established part of legal theory. You can't dine-and-dash then tell the judge, "Well, no one told me I had to pay for the food, I thought the numbers on the menu were juts decorative." Service providers, including news outlets, are under an implied contract to provide the promised product to customers. If they don't deliver, or deliver something else while purporting that this thing is the agreed-upon product, that's a form of fraud.

>Let's break the statement down

Missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter how well-constructed some example or another is, the driving point is that service providers are under obligation to give customers what they pay for.

>>95715

you reminded me of times when contracts of marriage were done verbally in front of community

good old times