No.99398 [View All]
I want to become skilled with weapons and physically fit. I want to travel all the way to New Zealand to kill this scumbag who killed the innocent. He doesn't even deserve a trial. He is no "red-pilled lad," he is a statist; he is a collectivist. A self-admitted fascist and, which he admitted himself, identifies most politically with the People's Republic of China.
Thread Theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s43yLMgXXOU
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99509
>>99508
>gets a non argument to a non argument he made
<how could this be happening
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99510
>>99507
>just open a book
Kek, been working on /leftypol/, i see?
>telling someone not to rape, kill or rob someone is the same as telling someone to protect that man's property
Nope, you are a retard.
>Did so.
Nope, you did not
>Except I am a libertarian
>>99456
<never said I was libertarian either
Keep trying, your false flag attempts are funnier with each try
>you two on the other hand are just some neetsoc from /pol/ pretending to be a Libertarian
Nice namecalling m8
> Who said anything about serving anyone anything?
You're talking about some imaginary universal law, no need to pretend you aren't retarded.
> I've actually been here probably longer than most anons that are browsing today
<I've been here for several hours, i'm so oldfag
Keep trying, CiAnigger
>Talking to a brick wall does seem to be pointless venture, especially so when the brick wall somehow manages to have autism.
Too edgy for me, you lost.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99512
>>99510
>Kek, been working on /leftypol/, i see?
no, you just actually need to read, that is if you're able.
>Nope, you are a retard.
The fact that you fail to grasp very simple ideas is what's baffling to me. It's like saying that the very fact that I would allow someone to order fried chicken from Popeye's is basically the same as saying I'm forcing society to feed this guy fried chicken. It's so fucking dumb that I have to believe that you're shitposting.
>Nope, you did not
Except I did.
>Keep trying, your false flag attempts are funnier with each try
That's not me, I have this flag, remember? Basic pattern recognition is important anon.
>You're talking about some imaginary universal law, no need to pretend you aren't retarded.
I'm talking about consistency in regards to ethics and governing property. If that's something you can't gather your head around then that's your problem, just stop pretending to be a Libertarian.
><I've been here for several hours, i'm so oldfag
You're not fooling anyone.
>Keep trying, CiAnigger
Oh yeah anon, the CIA-nigger is definitely the guy saying "let's not kill people randomly". Such a CIA-nigger thing to do, look at me trying to set up false flags of peace where people don't step into mosques and open fire. You caught me anon.
God damn you're dumb, in an almost amusing way.
>Too edgy for me, you lost.
Are you sure you're not an infiltrator yourself? At this point it seems like you're just throwing around memes without thought or reason. There's nothing edgy about pointing out the fact that you can't process very basic facts or that you have autism, it's just the unfortunate state of affairs that we live in.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99514
>>99512
>you just actually need to read
Yeah yeah, to >>>/leftypol/ you go
> Except I did.
Except you didn't, which is why you don't provide proof or point to it, only repeating the same thing over and over.
>That's not me, I have this flag
Well, i guess i'm you now.
HEY I SUCK COCKS
>just stop pretending to be a Libertarian
Lel, says someone who reduced libertarian theory to the level of ancom
>You're not fooling anyone
Oh, i don't, mr oldfag
>the CIA-nigger is definitely the guy saying "let's not kill people randomly"
<the CIA-nigger is definitely not the guy saying "le's just pretend that we have order, it'll work"
Good try, still fail
>There's nothing edgy about pointing out
Oh, but it's soo edgy to point out that mudslims are not people, really
At what point did you realize that ideology you believe in is basically anarcho communism renamed?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99515
>>99514
>Yeah yeah, to >>>/leftypol/ you go
You have far more in common with communists and marxists than I or anyone else does.
>Except you didn't, which is why you don't provide proof or point to it, only repeating the same thing over and over.
Your inability to process information is your own problem.
>Well, i guess i'm you now.
How are you this dense?
>Lel, says someone who reduced libertarian theory to the level of ancom
I doubt you know what that means, hell I'm not even sure that I know what you're referring to.
>Good try, still fail
You are terrible at this.
>Oh, but it's soo edgy to point out that mudslims are not people, really
Are you unironically some sort of teen edgehog or something?
>At what point did you realize that ideology you believe in is basically anarcho communism renamed?
The point at which you stopped being retarded, which if you haven't gathered by now, still hasn't happened and probably won't happen anytime soon.
Kill yourself, you absolute moron.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99516
>>99398
>wanting to avenge people who would never avenge you
top jej
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99611
dont mind me, just testing something.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99619
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99651
>killed the innocent
Is this a joke? That mosque produced over 16 terrorists.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99710
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>99495
>Rights can only exist if they are granted.
Those are privileges. Rights are derived by first principles.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99804
>>99710
I watched up to #5, where he starts defending the NAP, and his argument fails to hold up to scrutiny there. He assumes that the person initiating force somehow has to judge all initiation of force against him as illegitimate. This is not the case. It's perfectly possible for an individual to judge the initiation of force against him in certain instances as morally neutral. In this case, there is nothing logically contradictory about initiating force against another person, so long as if you were in the other person's position you would still not judge that action as morally illegitimate. And no, just because you judge an action as morally neutral does not mean that you cannot judge it as personally unpreferable for non-moral reasons. There is nothing logically inconsistent with valuing your own health and not valuing the health of others. When you value something, you are not making a moral claim that that thing is universally preferable for everyone or that morally the universal quantity of that thing should be increased or that others cannot morally diminish your enjoyment of it; you are simply making a statement that you, personally, would rather have that thing than not have that thing.
Additionally, when he comes to point #4, he conflates the proving of facts with the justification of actions. Consequently, his arguments from then on are founded on the belief that every single 'active' action that one takes must be proven to be morally positive, something that he has failed to prove or even provide an argument for.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99841
>>99804
>It's perfectly possible for an individual to judge the initiation of force against him in certain instances as morally neutral.
True, but the NAP is an ethical stance and has nothing to do with morality.
> Consequently, his arguments from then on are founded on the belief that every single 'active' action that one takes must be proven to be morally positive, something that he has failed to prove or even provide an argument for.
Again, this has nothing to do with morality. Also, not every active action must be justified as Shane mentions in the video.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99874
>>99841
Is there really much of a difference between morals and ethics?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99880
>>99841
>the NAP is an ethical stance and has nothing to do with morality
No, NAP is a legal principle and has nothing to do with ethics. It provides a way to resolve property conflicts between legal actors on a neutral and non-biased basis.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99884
>>99880
From Mises wiki:
"The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate"
>>99874
morals are subjective while ethics refer to rules provided by an external source
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99889
>>99884
>morals are subjective
According to your definitions, ethics are just as subjective as morals. Just as different people can have different morals, different external sources can have different ethics. Likewise, it's possible to examine the ethics of an organization such as the Bar association, just as it's possible to objectively examine the morals that motivate the actions of a specific person.
>ethics refer to rules provided by an external source
If that were true, 'ethics' and 'law' would be synonyms, and I really do not think that is the case.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99899
>>99884
Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society on such an unsupported stance. Not a one greater than ancoms can, anyway.
>inherently illegitimate
Deontological libertarianism, everyone. "You can't do this, man, that's, like, illegal".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99902
>>99899
>they're not going to build a society on such an unsupported stance
Most actors abide by the NAP. Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property (except ,maybe during periods of societal chaos)..
>"You can't do this, man, that's, like, inconsistent/contradictory".
FTFY
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99904
>>99902
>Most actors abide by the NAP
Non sequitur, they may be peaceful and non-aggressive, it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with NAP.
>Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property
Communism. Now tell me what does this have to do with NAP as a legal principle.
>"You can't do this, man, that's, like, inconsistent/contradictory".
Same thing, tbh, even if that statement made sense.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99906
>>99398
Can you be any more of a bitchcunt?
Get a hotshot to the NECK!!!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99907
>>99904
>Non sequitur,
Nope. If they are non-aggressive (i.e. not initiating force) then they are abiding by the NAP.
>Communism.
Which communist society?
> Now tell me what does this have to do with NAP as a legal principle.
Well, we are talking whether actions are aggressive or not in that example, aren't we?
>Same thing,
Inconsistency and contradiction does not imply legality.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99909
>>99907
>If they are non-aggressive (i.e. not initiating force) then they are abiding by the NAP
Nope. They still support an entity that doesn't, nor do they do anything against it or other similar one. As well as there are other people who are aggressive still, and people that aren't acting aggressively only because of a legal system present. Your point is moot and your arguments are disconnected and null.
>Which communist society?
Any.
>Well, we are talking whether actions are aggressive or not in that example, aren't we?
No, we aren't.
>Inconsistency and contradiction does not imply legality.
They are the same thing in a sense they are worthless bitching that leads to nowhere.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99910
>>99889
>According to your definitions, ethics are just as subjective as morals.
These are not my definitions:
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
The NAP is logical derived by axioms such as self-ownership and remains consistent while morals pertain to the individual and may change over the individual’s lifetime.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99912
>>99398
You won't do shit, nigger.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99914
>>99909
>They still support an entity that doesn't,
But you just stated earlier that they were non-aggressive. Why the contradiction?
>As well as there are other people who are aggressive still
These do not comprise of most people though nor most actions.
>Your point is moot and your arguments are disconnected and null.
How so?
>Any.
So you cannot name even one?
>No, we aren't.
But we were as is evident in your previous statement: “Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society on such an unsupported stance”
>They are the same thing in a sense they are worthless bitching that leads to nowhere.
Then what is your beef with deontological ethics? Are you a Stirnerite?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99915
>>99914
>But you just stated earlier that they were non-aggressive. Why the contradiction?
They do not actively aggress, yet they take a stance that is against the ethical principle. There's no contradiction.
>These do not comprise of most people though nor most actions.
They do.
>How so?
I already pointed out.
>So you cannot name even one?
Are you too retarded to not put words in my mouth?
>But we were as is evident in your previous statement
And you never pointed out what does this have to do with mine.
>Then what is your beef with deontological ethics?
Idiotic claims incoming from them.
>Are you a Stirnerite?
Do you enjoy fucking your whore mother?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99916
>>99915
> They do not actively aggress,
Then their actions are consistent with the NAP.
>yet they take a stance that is against the ethical principle
Their position is irrelevant. What matters are their actions.
> Are you too retarded to not put words in my mouth?
“Any” is not a communist society
> And you never pointed out what does this have to do with mine.
Let me break it down for you:
“Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society (an actor or group of actors performing actions) on such an unsupported stance (NAP)”
> Idiotic claims incoming from them.
Then you should not have any beef with the NAP.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99917
>>99916
>Then their actions are consistent with the NAP
Until they are not.
>What matters are their actions
And their actions correspond with their position.
> “Any” is not a communist society
But any communist society is.
>“Well, they are wrong and they're not going to build a society (an actor or group of actors performing actions) on such an unsupported stance (NAP)”
Then you're twisting words again, equating "not building society on" with "building society against". Neither is this stance "NAP". You once again prove yourself incapable of holding an argument without resorting to twisting words and sophism.
>Then you should not have any beef with the NAP.
I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99918
>>99917
>Until they are not.
Then they are aggressive actors, contradicting your previous statement.
>And their actions correspond with their position.
Same as above.
>But any communist society is.
Care to specify which communist society and how the majority of actions by the majority of actors are aggressive?
>equating "not building society on" with "building society against"
Where did I equate this? We were talking about actions and if they abide/violate the NAP
> Neither is this stance "NAP".
Then which ethical stance were you referring to?
>You once again prove yourself incapable of holding an argument without resorting to twisting words and sophism.
Non-sequitur and character assassination
>I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.
The NAP makes no claim of sovereignty.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99919
>>99918
>Then they are aggressive actors
Then they are.
>Care to specify which communist society
Any communist society, it doesn't matter which.
>how the majority of actions by the majority of actors are aggressive?
Not going to, you're moving the goalposts again. Their actions infringe on property rights, that's enough for your claim.
>Where did I equate this?
<Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property
>We were talking about actions and if they abide/violate the NAP
No, we didn't.
>Then which ethical stance were you referring to?
The one you claim to be "NAP". This is like arguing with a communist.
>Non-sequitur
A direct conclusion from the previous observation.
>character assassination
Nothing you haven't been doing, i'll just point it out all day.
>The NAP makes no claim of sovereignty.
Non sequitur, the NAP cannot claim anything. Don't play dumb.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99922
>>99919
>Then they are.
Which contradicts your previous statement that they are non-aggressive.
>Any communist society, it doesn't matter which.
But this is not an example. “Any” is a general term.
>you're moving the goalposts again.
Restating my earlier statement is not goalpost shifting.
> Their actions infringe on property rights,
How do the majority of actions infringe on property rights?
<Tell me a society where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property
Asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP.
>The one you claim to be "NAP"
The ethical stance I was referring to was the NAP, but somehow claim it not to be the NAP. So how is the “NAP” not the NAP?
> A direct conclusion from the previous observation.
Yes, your conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument.
> Nothing you haven't been doing
Where have I attacked another’s character in this thread?
> Non sequitur,
Incorrect since dominion is sovereignty
>the NAP cannot claim anything
The NAP asserts that the initiation of force is no justifiable as demonstrated in the linked video.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99923
This thread is full of win.After reading all the Nazis at /pol/ It's like a breath of fresh air seeing people having actual arguments.
(tipping hat, continuing lurking)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99937
>>99922
>your previous statement that they are non-aggressive
I already agreed with your definition of "once aggressor always aggressor", what do you need?
>But this is not an example. “Any” is a general term.
And i'm using a general term as a general example. If you were interested in refuting the point you could've picked any of communist societies, including the ones that historically existed, yet you didn't, because you're a filthy demagogue.
>Restating my earlier statement is not goalpost shifting.
Retrying goalpost shifting is goalpost shifting.
>How do the majority of actions infringe on property rights?
By not recognizing them and in many ways suggesting their nonrecognition and violation, up to the point of prosecution over any voiced claim over any object.
>Asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP
<where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property
>The ethical stance I was referring to was the NAP
NAP isn't an ethical stance, again. You can repeat it many more times, yet it won't become more true. If repeating it over and over is the only argument you have you'd better stop this discussion, you're getting nowhere.
>your conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument
It does. Your 'prove me right" stance, shifting goalposts, bold and unsupported claims, picking words out of context all lead to the direct conclusion that i'm not talking to a libertarian but just a pitiful demagogue that could shill for communism next day.
>Where have I attacked another’s character in this thread?
Correction, in your case it'd be more like a character suicide, not assassination.
>since dominion is sovereignty
You're not even taking sentences but even single words out of context. Either you actually lack ability to read and are clearly unfit for this discussion or you should stop playing words and twisting them and their meaning.
>The NAP asserts
Nope, it doesn't. It's just basic principle that guides those who want to resolve conflicts. You can repeat your definition again and again, it won't change the fact that it's not any more efficient than hippies protesting against wars.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99969
I find the NAP so vague tbh. I remember Larken talking about the gray areas of it. Like how much decibel from your loud neighbor is considered not aggressive, and when is it? lol
Like many other things with anarchism, it needs to be worked out more and the sooner and the more that anarchists actively trying to work it out the better, so that the people who want anarchism can get this thing going, I feel like time is running out more and more every year.
The ever-increasing grip of statism is highly disturbing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99977
>>99937
>Retrying goalpost shifting is goalpost shifting.
Rephrasing a statement without distorting the meaning is not goalpost shifting.
> By not recognizing them and in many ways suggesting their nonrecognition and violation, up to the point of prosecution over any voiced claim over any object.
This is another generalization. How are they not recognizing them? Could you provide data on these violations? If such violations are prevalent, then why are contracts so prevalent?
<where most people actively seek out to harm others and/or their property
Once again, asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP.
> NAP isn't an ethical stance, again.
It is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
> It does.
Proof?
> Your 'prove me right" stance, shifting goalposts, bold and unsupported claims, picking words out of context all lead to the direct conclusion that i'm not talking to a libertarian but just a pitiful demagogue that could shill for communism next day.
My previous statement still holds since you have not demonstrated where and how I am doing these supposed claims of goalpost shifting and removing context.
> Correction, in your case it'd be more like a character suicide,
Proof?
> You're not even taking sentences but even single words out of context.
“Dominion noun 1. Sovereignty or control”
> Nope, it doesn't
“he non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99987
What's wrong with the golden rule? Except for it's origins of course.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.99991
>>99478
It doesn't make sense. They never targeted a single politician nor do they have the courage to make the attempt.
We're pretty much dealing with whISIS
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100009
>>99977
>Rephrasing a statement without distorting the meaning is not goalpost shifting.
The meaning was goalpost shifting to begin with.
>How are they not recognizing them?
By not recognizing them. How much of a nigger can you be?
>If such violations are prevalent, then why are contracts so prevalent?
Another retarded question. They are not prevalent.
>Once again, asking whether a society violates the NAP does not equate to "building society against" the NAP.
Once again, you dense motherfucker, it's not NAP, nor is this pathetic attempt to shift goalposts of any value. Following the "NAP", or whatever feel good pretentious bullshit you make up does not equate "forming society over it", nor do i have to prove the opposite to somehow make this idiotic blabbery more untrue that it already is.
>It is
No, it isn't, you dumb fuck. Stick that wikipedia link up your ass, it doesn't mean shit.
>Proof?
Learn to read, i'm not going to waste my time repeating it so that you can ignore it and pretend it didn't happen, deceitful filth.
>My previous statement still holds
No, it doesn't, i've clearly proven your shitty attempts to shift discussion and shove your implications as if they were in any way true.
>“Dominion noun 1. Sovereignty or control”
Reread what i wrote before, you dumb fucking scum.
>“he non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.”
Yeah, yeah, repeat it again, retarded idiot.
I'm tired of walking in circles. Kill yourself, you disingenuous inbred shill. Eat shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100113
>>100009
>The meaning was goalpost shifting to begin with.
The original meaning cannot be goalpost shifting
>By not recognizing them.
How are they not recognized?
>They are not prevalent
What are transactions? Even those most mundane purchases come with receipts.
>it's not NAP,
It is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
>whatever feel good pretentious bullshit you make up does not equate "forming society over it”
I did not make up the NAP as shown by the link above. I did not ask whether as society forms according to the NAP but asked which society does not abide by the NAP.
>No, it isn't, you dumb fuck.
It is. Also, character attacks are not arguments.
>it doesn't mean shit.
It provides the definition.
>Learn to read
>muh “Read a book”
Still not proof. You should go back to >>>/eftypol/ with that shit.
>i've clearly proven your shitty attempts to shift discussion and shove your implications
Shift discussions where? We are taking about the NAP: >>99884
>Reread what i wrote before,
<I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.
“domain (noun): a territory over which dominion (i.e. sovereignty/control) is exercised”
Once again, the NAP as an ethical stance does not claim domain. You are looking at this principle as a legal law instead of a moral law.
>Yeah, yeah, repeat it again,
“an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.”
“an ethical stance asserting”
I’ll make it more specific to comply with your reading comprehension:
"asserting”
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100140
>>100113
>The original meaning cannot be goalpost shifting
It fucking was and still is, no matter how many times you repeat that, you dumb nigger.
>How are they not recognized?
By being violated. Why are you so retarded?
>What are transactions?
Something that doesn't exist in communism
>It is
No, it's not. It won't be no matter how many times you spam your retarded link with feel-good bullshit, you retarded shitstain.
>muh “Read a book”
Who said anything about books, you dumb nigger? You're incapable of reading a sentence.
>We are taking about the NAP
And NAP isn't about ethics.
>Once again, the NAP as an ethical stance does not claim domain
Once again, eat shit with your ethics and learn to read. NAP cannot claim anything.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100143
>>100113
>You should go back to >>>/eftypol/ with that shit.
You're in no position to tell anyone that, pretentious whiny scum.
>“domain (noun): a territory over which dominion (i.e. sovereignty/control) is exercised”
So you are actually incapable of reading sentences. Got it. Eat shit.
>You are looking at this principle as a legal law instead of a moral law.
>Moral law
Wow, that's even shittier that it was before. There's no such thing as "moral law", you fucking christcuck scum.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100161
>>100113
The NAP is neither a legal nor an ethical law. It's simply the way in which you learn to live in a society in which no single entity has a monopoly on violence (or on justice). The essence of it is simply "don't fuck with people who can fuck back." It's a lesson many people unfortunately don't learn these days, because as children they're commanded by adults to appeal to authority rather than resolve issues themselves. Most of those people are going to find themselves in a gutter pretty damn quick in Ancapistan, unless they're fast learners.
It's not a matter of appealing to the jury with an argument of "but he started it!". Rather, it's a matter of choosing your fights and not starting shit with anyone you don't have to. It doesn't matter if you're an uber rich, uber powerful, cartoon villain real estate magnate who goes around extorting every last penny from your tenants; it only takes one person to get fed up with your shit to put three bullets in your head. No amount of money or power can put that back together.
Stop thinking of the NAP as a way to justify who was "right" in a conflict. Instead, think of it as a reminder to avoid conflict whenever possible, without failing to recognize when avoidance becomes impossible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100193
>>100161
>It's a lesson many people unfortunately don't learn these days, because as children they're commanded by adults to appeal to authority rather than resolve issues themselves.
OK CLASS TIME TO LINE UP!!!!!!!!!!!
https://youtu.be/zWb9wucquU4
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100194
>>99398
> killed the innocent.
Muslim invaders and traitors are not innocent.
… and Statism will never go away, it can only be minimised in the right conditions nya~
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100195
>>99503
The reality of this world is one of racial, religious and class conflict. As for the NAP. consent is the issue at hand. Who can consent? Who owns the things? What does ownership mean? Who defends the property rights? Who enforces the contracts? These are the questions that matter nya~
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100198
>>99398
> identifies most politically with the People's Republic of China.
Well China is the mercantilist power set to dominate the world thanks the the ruling Jewish Elite in the US building them up and destroying the US for decades nya~
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100199
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>100194
Think about it from a libertarian perspective. If someone is trespassing on your land you can shoot them legally right? The only question in the NZ case is WHO OWNS THE LAND… and the only realy answer is the one who has the monopoly of 'legitimate' (as supported by the media) force. History can play a factor but is only ever justification. The fact that (((central banking derived finance))) controls the media means they control the land… unless there is resistance. THe only difference between a 'terrorist' (ISIS) and a king (SAUDI ARABIA) is their power relative to each other nya~
https://meguca.org/nya/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100231
>>100198
take your pills schizo
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100271
>>100143
>>100161
>It fucking was and still is
Restating the original goal is not goal shifting no matter how many times you complain.
>By being violated.
Passive statements do not answer the question. Was specific action(s) of violation?
>Something that doesn't exist in communism
No, as we see in the CNT, where they recognized personal property rights.
>No, it's not.
> NAP cannot claim anything.
>And NAP isn't about ethics.
Proof? I cited my source and you failed to provide a rebuttal.
>Who said anything about books,
It is a metaphor, moron. Your generic suggestion is analogous to that leftypol meme.
>So you are actually incapable of reading sentences
Your words <not mine:
<I would not, if they did not claim that it's in their domain.
<domain
There's no such thing as "moral law"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral%20law
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100423
>>99437
So you are against freedom of speech?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.