Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
NAP fallacy: who is an individual? 2017-06-30 08:58:50 Post No. 131927297
[Report] Image search: [Google]
NAP fallacy: who is an individual? 2017-06-30 08:58:50 Post No. 131927297
[Report] Image search: [Google]
> The 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 which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.
But all of this changes a lot depending on who is defined as "individual".
> Are animals individuals?
Yes: jail time for killing a mosquito. No: Okay kill this mosquito.
> Are foetuses individual?
Yes: No abortion. No: Abortion.
> Are non Whites individuals?
Yes: No gas chambers. No: Gas chambers.
> Are rich people individuals?
Yes: No gulags. No: Gulags.
> Are my political opponents individuals?
Yes: No totalitarian state. No: Totalitarian state compliant with the NAP.
> Is everybody but me an individual?
Yes: ok. No: you can kill, rape and eat anybody.
There is no objective definition of who is an individual. Most of the points raised above are controversial. Can any libcuck answer this?
>>
>>131927297
People are individuals
>>
>>131928235
Then who are "people"? And why should it be so? And what about the cases I mentioned?
>>
>>131928235
t. redundant retard
>>
File: IMG_1453.jpg (77KB, 401x482px) Image search:
[Google]
77KB, 401x482px
Bumping to see where this goes
>>
> Are animals individuals?
No.
> Are foetuses individual?
Yes.
> Are non Whites individuals?
Yes.
> Are rich people individuals?
Yes.
> Are my political opponents individuals?
Yes.
> Is everybody but me an individual?
...What? Laws apply even to those you are not you.
Individual = a person.
>>
>>131928715
I think it will go nowhere. I asked the same question once on a libertarian FB group and no one could answer. This is just one of their many fallacies of course.
>>
>>131929313
Can you prove that your "Yes" should be "Yes" and your "No" should be "No" objectively. If not just GTFO.
Also cut your bullshit:
>individual = people
>individual = person
This just shifts the question of who is an individual to who are people or who is a person.
>>
>>131929478
A human being? I am fairly certain I can prove that rich people are still humans. I don't know what you are getting at m8.
>>
>>131929841
Why should all human beings, and only them, be defined as individuals? What is the objective proof of that? Throughout history and still today, some people have different conceptions (cf. original post). Why are they wrong and why are you right?
>>
>>131927297
>There is no objective definition of who is an individual
Your problem is not a philosophical one it's mental bro, if you can't distingish what's an individual get check maibe you have schizophrenia.
This is not an ad hominen GO TO A FUCKING DOCTOR!
>>
>>131930110
> low IQ
> Spanish flag
Why am I not surprised the slightest?
>>
You're all just saying non-individual bull shit.
I'm the individual here fags
>>
>>131927297
NAP is for faggots anyway. At best the NAP ensures the most efficient economic system, but overall as far as morality goes, I'd say let the fittest survive and the weak be hunted.
>>
>>131930307
Is'nt anarcapitalism based on NAP you fag?
>>
File: 1485393201897.png (37KB, 1342x528px) Image search:
[Google]
37KB, 1342x528px
>>131927297
OP's point in a meme.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3