So what exactly is wrong with NAP?

File: 1489403994509.png (7KB, 658x662px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 658x662px

nap is bad because i dodn't want sleeep

>>9300003
it's completely autistic and also low test and gay

>>9300189
this but unironically.
It's exactly as foolish as "voluntary anarchism" or any other memepolitik

>>9300198
I was not being ironic either

>>9300003
power will always exist.
the only natural progression from ancap is a totalitarian fascist dictatorship.

>>9300397
and...?

>>9300003
Its impossible to draw a line of what constitutes as breaking the NAP. There is no point at which violence truly begins

>>9300402
and what?
state your argument faggot.

>i have all the wealth and power
>i break the nap

What exactly do you plan to do about it kid?

It's the non-aggression principle. It's an ideal that we should try to live by and it essentially boils down to "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."

It's hard to tell if most people are memeing or they legitimately don't understand how an ideal libertarian society would work. They seem to take this idea of a NAP and assume that means there can't be any government but that's ridiculous. There is a legitimate role for government and one of those reasons is arbitration. If somebody violates the NAP there is liability, if someone dumps toxic waste on your property you take them to court and get paid. That is the disincentive for violating the NAP. The goal is not a society with no government or regulation, but a society with minimal government and regulation.

>>9300976
The problem then is that to have a government strong enough to hold all people responsible for their transgressions, you must (by definition) have a government stronger than any other agent in the country. Which is one open to exactly the kinds of abuses of power libertarians want to avoid. So it's unworkable IRL.
t. pessimist lolbertarian

>>9300993

The modern US government is stronger right now then it could ever be in a perfect libertarian society but I wouldn't say the US government is not ultimately beholden to the people. The 2nd amendment is the safety valve that allows people to overthrow the government at any time, it's what keeps the government in check, and that wouldn't be any different in a libertarian society.

>>9300976
anclaps unironically believe in private courts where I suppose you pay to get fucked in the ass

>>9301264

What do you mean private courts?

>>9301281
hired arbitrators or something

>>9300433
>What exactly do you plan to do about it kid?
Wake up.

>>9300003
Pollution of all sorts.
The fact that it's morally and ethically permissible to let a 50 babies die because you don't want to walk 10 meters.

>>9301289

I got that I'm just not understanding where you got that from. What gave you the impression that libertarians want private courts?

Some people will always naturally be more powerful than others. By extension some groups of people will always be more powerful than others. But we know there is no being behind doing, working becoming. And power is always expressed as the imposition of will Re: violence of some form. lolbertarians don't understand this because they are illiterate fucktards who are unironically stupider than communists. NAP absolute retard tier.

>>9300397
power only exists when its used, so no, not always

>>9301013
You are fucking delusional. Where was the second mememendment keeping your government in check during countless useles wars or when Obama drove.you to depts unforeseen

>>9301294
But it is tho. Morally, at least. Maybe not ethically.
This is why utilitarians should be banned from office.

>>9301348
>or when Obama drove.you to depts unforeseen
wut...

>>9301294
>Pollution of all sorts.
Coase Theorem.
>The fact that it's morally and ethically permissible to let a 50 babies die because you don't want to walk 10 meters.
It is. Assuming you are not responsible for the conditions leading to their impending demise.

>>9301375
debts.

or when Bush tricked you into attacking Iraq.

or when Obama made you attack Afghanistan when SAUDIS HIT YOU

>>9301348

I can only assume the people didn't want to end those wars enough to take up arms against their own government. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean the option wasn't or isn't there.

>>9301387
Deficits don't matter and we invaded Afghanistan on the premise that it was a hotbed of planning and training not the ideological source of terrorism.

>or when Bush tricked you into attacking Iraq.
It was in the works since the 90's. Bush was largely tricked by Cheney and Rumsfeld who were also tricked by Chalabi who was probably working for Iran.

>>9301392
There have been a number of civilian uprisings since the founding of the USA and all have been crushed.

>>9301392
>What are the Coal Wars
For a long time the government in America has been too strong to be fixed through revolution. We'd need a world-destabilizing event to right things now.

>>9301413

There certainly has. I'm not sure what your point is though.

>>9301383
>When I tell people to learn basic economics, I really mean that they should only learn basic economics

>>9301418

The government snuffing out small rebellions throughout history only tells me that not enough people felt strongly enough to rebel. Surely if enough people had risen up in arms the government would have fallen.

>>9301419
Historical evidence indicates that the second amendment is highly optimistic regarding the ability of the people to check the government's power. It's just some words on paper.

>>9301418
This. Second Amendment means nothing

>>9301439

You're right it's words on paper, but it what it guarantees is what is important, and that's the ownership of firearms. An armed population will always be a danger to the government no matter how big it gets. There will never be enough policeman and military to enforce a nationwide police state when every citizen is a potential assassin.

>>9301439
Regardless, its impossible for a first world countries government to maintain itself through force.

>>9301438
No it tells you that its a suicidal task because the government is far too powerful.

>>9301472

It can be suicidal, certainly. Not always though. Sometimes it works out really well, like when the 13 colonies rebelled from England.

>>9301438
That's why I said "world destabilizing event" is necessary. Unless almost the entire populace rises up as one, the government will win.

>>9301418
What if I actually believe those miners deserved to get machine gunned for being SJWs?

>>9301482
You would be wrong in your assumptions. Also that's irrelevant to the efficacy of their rebellion.
Nice /pol/-falseflagging

>>9301383
This is more about the subtle stuff, like driving a car or light pollution

File: cb1f15d08e22a60a75d7fc5b699208daf97652876c4846ec42605ecade5875f9.png (224KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1280x800px

>>9300976
So let's say you've got your minimal government. What keeps large business owners and banks from bribing politicians into intervening in the economy on their behalf.

Because that's basically how capitalism works irl.

>>9301480

I don't disagree. It would take a significant event to cause enough outrage among the population. The option is there. That's what's important.

The second amendment doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing though. The people in government generally don't want to gun down there citizens if it can be avoided which can cause them to be more charitable in their negotiations with the population. The very threat of violence, even if there's no chance of overthrowing the government can be enough to protect the people from tyranny.

>>9301498
>Coal Wars
If they can get away with it the government will absolutely use force. We have much less power than you think.

>>9300003
National Workers' Party sounds even more ultra-rightwing than NSDAP

>>9301497
If we privatise everything, then there will be no government to bribe. Service providers would be forced to compete fair and square for the consumer's buck, that's just the way the market works. Punishing the indolent and rewarding the enterpreneur, there's no is truly no better justice

>>9301497

I don't know. I think a better question is how do we stop it now?

I think one way to do it would be to deregulate the economy, to take the power away from the government so there would ultimately be no point in buying the politicians. Make it so they can't intervene in the economy.

>>9301521
>>9301525
So if you don't have the state's power monopoly how do you keep companies from hiring private defense forces and basically becoming states.

>>9301478
That was completely different because they were a colony and had distance between themselves and their overlords. It was also a better move to cut the colonies loose because it had become so expensive to maintain them.

>>9301502
You gotta remember the strikers where unlawfully occupying or even destroying private property. You can't fault the owners for intervening

>>9301544

Keep in mind that a libertarian government doesn't mean no government. I think the government has a legitimate role is stopping people from killing each other. We don't want to live in a road warrior universe.

File: 1490155327097.png (271KB, 1914x828px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1914x828px

>>9301294
>consequentialism

literally kill yourself pleb

File: Cx2FiRg.png (269KB, 789x470px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 789x470px

>>9301544
you expel them from the libertarian social order when you see them trying to do so

>>9300003
nothing theoretically, but its useless on its own.

>>9300407
this

>>9301521
not that guy but first you talk about minimal government then now you talk about no government at all?
pick one.
if you're talking about privatizing the legal system then that's fucking retarded.
also, thinking service providers won't collude to standardize prices as they currently do is just incredibly stupid.
>>9301525
yup deregulate the economy let the corporations maximize profit at everyone elses expense, take the power away from politicians and give it to big corporations. that way all of us are literal slaves and the government can't do anything about it. great plan bud.

>>9301561
But how do you have a government with a strong enough police and military force to keep companies from forming paramilitaries while at the same time making it impossible to bribe politicians to use aforementioned forces to intervene in the economy on their behalf.

>>9301013
>illiterate, obese hicks with M16's
>vs
>a military budget approximately as large as the next 23 combined, most of which are those of allies

Yeah no.

>>9301640

Well we have to know the purpose of corporations buying politicians. Companies aren't buying politicians so the government will use the military to its advantage, I think companies tend to buy politicians so those politicians will introduce favorable regulations. For example if I owned a really large cable company like Time Warner I might buy some politicians that promise to some introduce laws that make it impossible for smaller competition to operate.

I don't think there's a danger of companies buying the military to benefit their company so I see no reason to limit the governments power in that respect. I do however see companies buying politicians in regards to regulation and in that respect is where I want to limit the governments power.

>>9301685
Look up Smedley Butler for a start.

Because the act of existing is aggression against everything around you.

I think safety regulations actually make workers less safe. Companies are only interested in protecting themselves from liability, and under the current system they do that following these safety regulations as best they can. The problem is the government is often very slow to react to fluid situations. It's not uncommon for workers to engage in unsafe practices for months or years until OSHA finally comes around takes notice of it, and before that happens accidents do happen and people do unnecessarily get hurt. I believe safety regulations disincentive a proactive approach to safety. With government regulations, companies only need to to the bare minimum in order to protect themselves from being sued by injured workers.

In a world without any safety regulations, it would be up to a judge to decide on an individual case by case basis if a company did what was necessary to protect the workers. This would cause companies to go 'above and beyond' to protect their workers simply because nothing eats into profits faster than being sued.

>>9301743
im an an-cap but id say this is one of the only legitimate criticisms

by using resources now, you are increasing the scarcity that others will have to deal with in the future

those people's existences are irreversibly fucked by your existence, you're just lucky you were born first

>>9301767
>I think safety regulations actually make workers less safe.
Well you're wrong.

>>9301782

Why do you believe that?

>>9301782
t. urbanite

There is literally nothing wrong with violating the NAP

>>9301867

Well see about that when I launch a privately owned nuclear missile at you for trespassing.

File: realfuckinspooky.png (273KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 450x450px

>>9300003
It's a spook.
The individual doesn't benefit from blindly following it.

>>9302051
a real egoist would never recommend/imply that anyone else should be an egoist

>>9302068
Wrong.

>>9301767

Are there are any real objections to this?

>>9301555
I'm a hardcore libertarian and, imo, breaking up violent strikers is a legitimate use of state power

>>9302422
except that the mining companies were the original wrongdoers in the situation.
The government didn't respond, prompting the miners to take matters into their own hands. At which point money mysteriously found its way to Washington and all of a sudden there were federal troops in them hills.

File: getaspook.jpg (158KB, 496x496px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 496x496px

>>9302068
>a real egoist
Sounds awfully spooky m8

>>9300003
>>9300183
Ah-bloo-bloo

>>9300003
Nothing, but thinking that people just will follow it in an ancap society is retarded. It's just as deluded as believing in communist utopias where everyone just gives up their personal interests for the grand ideology.

>>9300003
Requires a state to enforce therefore rendering it's point invalid. Furthermore, deprive even the most devout of NAP believers of bread and situate them next to a bakery and they will inevitably resort to thievery. Even the most basic of self-preservation resorts in the breaking of the NAP.

>>9302572

I don't know any libertarian who believes stealing when it's legitimately a matter of survival is a violation of the NAP.

>>9302584
But the store owner would still be in the right for shooting the thief?

>>9302590

If it's not a violation of the NAP then the owner wouldn't have the right to shoot him. Even if it was a violation I don't know if the owner would have the right to shoot him because it would be an inordinate response to simple theft.

>>9302584
Except many do. Theft is an act of aggression according to libertarians and it's called the 'non-aggression principle' not the 'non-aggression unless you're starving principle.' Don't think you quite understand the degree of sociopathy needed by right-libs.

>>9302613

There's a meme where people will purposefully misunderstand libertarian views and then take them to the extreme and it's pretty funny but I think you're taking the joke a little seriously, like you actually think that's what they believe.

>>9302608
How would the store owner know that the thief is starving? And what punishment is the appropriate one? Is there even a law of the land without government? I thought the magic solution of the NAP is that it regulates itself. If you violate another persons person or property, the he can retaliate however he seems fit against he violator.

>>9302584
>I don't know any libertarian who believes stealing when it's legitimately a matter of survival is a violation of the NAP.
all of them? it's a violation of property rights.

>>9302628
You say ancaps aren't real?

>>9302633

The proper response to theft is to call the police and let them sort it out. You're confusing a libertarian government with no government at all.

>>9302643

No, I'm saying the image you have of libertarians is not real. What you believe they are doesn't coincide with reality.

>>9302628
Is theft aggression through the right-libertarian NAP lens or not? By their philosophical standards, it is. And if you claim aggression is situationally allowed then you aren't really following the NAP, now are you?

>>9302660

Theft is, yes. But there can be exceptions in what are called hard cases, like a legitimately starving man with no other options. There is no law that be so rigidly applied as you're suggesting.

File: nightmaregoggles.jpg (56KB, 722x349px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 722x349px

The same thing wrong with every principle: it's dogmatic. Every attempt to "prove" its validity deductively falls flat due to circularity.

>>9302657
But ancaps believe that, ancaps are real and ancaps are libertarians. So there are libertarians that believe it QED.

>>9302645
If you want to have an elected government with taxes (violate NAP) and laws that overrule the NAP, then why bring it up at all. Sounds like you only think of the NAP as a nice but insufficient concept, just like we already do in our non-libertarian governments.

>>9301296
He said ancaps.
Libertarians don't actually make any sense by their own game. There's no reason for them to stop peeling back government duties until there is no government anymore. Hence the common saying the difference between a libertarian and an ancap is six months. Ancaps run into their own very serious difficulties but libertarianism is literally just picking a point and saying 'government can stop here but not here' without having a reason.

Also the NAP cannot function as a moral principle but only as a legal one so there can be many issues.

>>9302696

The government has legitimate roles in many things like keeping people from hurting each other or arbitrating disputes and taxes for those purposes are not a violation of the NAP. I wonder if you assume that libertarians want the NAP to be the only law of the land? If so you're mistaken. It's better to think of it as an ideal.

>>9302700

The goal of a libertarian is to have minimal government. They're not just arbitrarily picking and choosing what the government does, it essentially comes down this question: Can the private market do this better? If not, it's the governments job.

I agree with you that the NAP is not moral principle.

>>9302708
Taxing people against their will is a violation of the NAP. You are taking away their money against their will and you violate them further on non-compliance.

I am not sure what kind of weird definition of the NAP you are using, please define it for me.

>>9302729

Okay, I'm down with making all taxes voluntary. If you don't pay taxes you don't get police protection and you can't use the roads. The problems solves itself.

>>9302742
Okay, so the shop owner can just shoot the thief because he didn't pay his police and court system tax?

>>9302746

Yeah sure whatever

>>9302750
Please take a seat in the helicopter over there

>>9300003

the (A)gression in NAP, who gets to decide what constitutes aggression, I consider billboard advertising a violation of my neurological security yet most ancaps support it

biopower, if I have 10 babies with my wife, total demand goes up, the cost of living increases for everyone, but now I have a network of 11 people who I can influence

consent, who gets to decide who is a retarded person that cannot decide for themselves and will likely be manipulated and who is a free agent

their theorists and philosophers suck, perhaps with the exception of romanticists like Heinlein and mostly exist to sell books that fund some website owning thinktank publisher

their ideal state will probably never be implemented in my lifetime, but overallthough ancaps, libertarians, and any other of their voluntarist comrades serve as a healthy counterbalance to a society defined by corporate consumer socialism

>>9300976
that's fine and dandy if you live in a low density rural area but it seems untenable in any city.

>>9302725
We have a very different opinion on libertarianism. The question for a libertarian cannot be 'can the private market do this better' because in order to be a libertarian, in order to be a capitalist at all, you must believe that valuations are subjective. Trying to quantify whether or not this or that economic system is better is a very difficult thing to do, unless you take a quasi-utilitarian stance of something along the lines of "better = greater value on average according to the total of people's subjective valuations". In this sense, libertarians actually do begin to pick and choose where government ought to involve itself without much explanation. A libertarian may say, the government must provide defense for its public and so a government should have a monopoly on certain types of weaponry. But it would seem that the underlying libertarian ideal that 'greater competition yields greater value' is totally undermined once you start to pick and choose where you wish to apply it. What ends up happening is that libertarians start looking too scared to go the full way which is why they are now seen as having given too many concessions as a party.

>>9302776
>a society defined by corporate consumer socialism
You lost me. The corporate consumer culture relies on atomizing people in society and preventing socialist institutions from forming. How do we live in a consumer socialism?

>>9302807

>How do we live in a consumer socialism

I agree its not ideal socialism but I don't know what else to call a system where people's lifestyle and work choices and almost entirely defined by social instituitons

>>9302875
>I agree its not ideal socialism but I don't know what else to call a system where people's lifestyle and work choices and almost entirely defined by social instituitons
That just sounds like society. Humans are social animals.

>>9302957

what you want to call it, a big mean set of traditions, taboos, institutions, mores, work culture, educational standards, and communicative rules sounds a lot like a state

if a population has mechanism for maintaining statistical properties that's the scientific definition of state

Based on the contents of the thread the lolbertarians are even more delusional than communists.

You cant leave people unchecked. It is even in the Bible where the retards eat the apple.

>>9303282
Based on the contents of this post you didn't read the thread.

>>9302875
That's just how humans are. Humans are social animals, not autistic utility maximising pedant logic machines, that's why 'libertarian' autistopia will always be a pipedream at best and an excuse for fascism at worst. It would own if there was no society and you were allowed to fuck kids and smoke weed all day but this is the real world kiddo. Grow Up.

>>9303287
I did. You people are delusional as fuck. Some retard seriously believes private corporations left unaccounted for would consider the best of the consumer.

I mean GODDAMN lol.

>>9303310
Literally put glass in ur food to save money and get away with it.

>>9303456
>le corporations DINDU!
t. nestle employer.

>>9301767
>>9302192

pretty sure there were substantially more worker accidents and deaths prior to OSHA. faced with no standards, business didn't bother to adopt them since it was cheaper. if a worker refused, he was fired, so workers tended not to object. if it came to a legal battle, a business has more money and therefore better able to fight in court than a worker who can't afford as good a lawyer on his wage, which is a wage he's not earning anymore if he's not working due to being sick, crippled or dead.

I really don't get why you think this.

File: Laughing_Marx.jpg (141KB, 480x563px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 480x563px

>>9301521
>If we privatise everything, then there will be no government to bribe. Service providers would be forced to compete fair and square for the consumer's buck, that's just the way the market works. Punishing the indolent and rewarding the enterpreneur, there's no is truly no better justice
Most everything is privatized right now my dude unless you are in North Korea or something. The thing is competition isn't a profitable business strategy and most respectable business men would rather not engage in that type of crude harmful activity which hurts everyones bottom line. History teaches us that respectable business men will come together and make sure no one acts out of line, read the Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko
Just because respectable business men use the state and regulatory capture today to forward their vested interests doesn't mean they can't forward their interests by other means, even Adam Smith recognized this:
>People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
Also how do you "reward the entrepreneur" without state monopolies granted in the form of intellectual property? Without intellectual property costs would pretty much be driven down to the cost of production immediately destroying entrepreneurial profit. This would be good for consumers and bad for entrepreneurs. Capitalism came into existence with the rise of the modern nation state because the nation state made profit possible and secure. Profit as a category would be driven down to 0% without the state and rentier incomes would soar to heights not seen since feudalism. Capitalism requires the state!

Serious question: if your neighbor is abusing their kid and you intervene, did you violate the NAP?

>>9304658
most ancaps consider children to be the property of their parents, so yes it would be a violation since "abuse" is a subject concept and you have no right to intervene in how other people utilize their property