is clown country. I’m forced to live as a despised minority in the land of my ancestors.
17 reasons why I’m not a libertarian: Milton Friedman Ayn Rand Frank Chodorov Moshe Feiglin David Friedman Patri Friedman Glenn Greenwald Henry Hazlitt Steve Horwitz Israel Kirzner Adam Kokesh Ilana Mercer Ludwig von Mises Murray Rothbard Murray Sabrin Irwin Schiff John Stossel
-
There is a reason to not violate the NAP. In return you get to assume that I won't just shoot you on sight. That's a pretty good reason. 1. Don't injure people 2. Don't take their stuff Those are rules anyone can agree to.
All life is a violation of the NAP. Every earthly creature wants to survive and prosper. Violent competition for mastery of resources and territory is something all forms of life on this earth are engaged in. The day you stop struggling is the day you forfeit your right to exist.
-
-
You don't even believe that yourself. If you did, you'd be murdering people and taking their stuff. You don't, because that's a maladaptive strategy. If you use it, others will physically remove you for their own safety.
-
Oh, and how do you propose to solve problems then? By making laws? You think laws would actually do any- thing if there weren't men with guns to enforce them? Violence or more specifically the threat of violence, physical or mental, is the only thing that's ever solved anything.
-
Galaxy brain take. The anarchist wants to solve problems by creating laws. That's happened zero times in history. Those two rules are it. It's the NAP, other than that, go nuts. If someone breaks those rules, the NAP doesn't apply to them, handle it. If not, leave them alon
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A good take, but more to the point even if the NAP were right, there's not a single valid non question begging argument they have. Moly is a joke. Teenage $$$ saying "Yes im bald so I'm a philosopher", branded as "not an argument" and "the daily argument", and not one. Not. one.
-
E. g., Platonism might be true. Many philosophers (see: real ones, not Molyneux) think so. But if your only justification is "If platonism is true, then you wouldn't be able to take a dump without platonism being true, and you take dumps dont you", it's left unsupported. IF!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.