Lol, people still believe in NAP?
-
-
-
You have something better?
-
Would you ever break the NAP personally? I would for my loved ones, to neutralize a potential threat, but less likely for myself.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have made this point quite often lately. If we were to adopt this as a society we would drastically reverse course.
-
If one really does the work on this ideal they will find, firstly, that it's completely legitimate. Also, once the ideal is full embodied, it drastically improves one's life in all aspects/ relationships. You realize you have no right to take from anyone and they toward you.
-
You become thankful for anything at all that anyone does for you, because nobody, anywhere has to do anything for you. Then, ppl like you and start wanting to do things for you. Win-win.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What justifies the non-aggression-principle? Why is it a principle and not just your personal preference?
-
Self-ownership, including the ownership of your own labor and, by extension, the products of that labor, is the most basic human right and the basis for the rights to life, liberty, and property. Any infringement upon these rights is inherently immoral.
-
I agree, but *why* is that true? If somebody says “I don’t believe your conception of human rights is true”, what argument do you have?
-
It’s simply a philosophy. I could ask that same person “Why don’t you believe each individual owns him/herself?” and I don’t think they would be able to formulate an answer. Self-ownership is one of those “self-evident” truths Jefferson wrote about, as I see it.
-
I think you’re really close to a fully justified answer but not quite there. The issue is that it could be true that self ownership isn’t justified, so therefore it’s not “self evident”
-
What can’t be true, however, is that reason is unjustified. Reason is what justifies all valid knowledge, so if it weren’t valid we couldn’t know it (by what rationale?)
-
Reason is “self-evident”, or axiomatic, because to even question its validity one must tacitly accept it (what sort of answer could the questioner be looking for?)
-
The non-aggression principle is downstream from that axiom. You should check out this book if you're interested:https://reasonandliberty.com/rl
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah but if you don't disavow, how do we know what team you're on?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you an anarchist / anarcho-capitalist yet or should I ask again in 6 months?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They must first forgo their Hobbesian concept of the preemptive strike
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You're a voluntarist?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.