The Non-Aggression Principle Just Does Not Work

[ByronB]

how far are people willing to go with this because there is NO logical end; mothers taking pictures of themselves nursing there baby, children (ANYONE under 18) taking pictures of themselves, anyone in the medical field for children, museums that have preserved fetuses (and anyone that takes pictures of them), anyone who would DARE film a birth, images that are preserved in your brain after accidentally seeing child porn  (make it so that parents have to have their memory erased after every diaper they change)... yeah I'm with joey, screw NAP lets send them ALL to the gas chambers.

None of this is based on force or fraud...

But it IS a child without clothes on... TO THE GAS CHAMBERS!!!!

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Leave it to a forum full of mostly libertarians to turn an asshat trolling into a debate over the merits of child porn. Geeze... 

[Recumbent ReCycler]

Count me out of any NAP. None. Ever. If this is what "non initiation of force" means, screw all of you. I will not partake in any of it.

Here's the issue.  Joey doesn't know what "non initiation of force" means.  He's confused.

non-

   1. Used in the sense of not, to negate the meaning of the word to which it is prefixed.

ini·ti·a·tion
Pronunciation:
    \i-?ni-sh?-??-sh?n\
Function:
    noun
Date:
    1583

1 a: the act or an instance of initiating b: the process of being initiated

ini·ti·ate
Pronunciation:
    \i-?ni-sh?-??t\
Function:
    transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
    ini·ti·at·ed; ini·ti·at·ing
Etymology:
    Late Latin initiatus, past participle of initiare, from Latin, to induct, from initium
Date:
    1533

1 : to cause or facilitate the beginning of : set going

force: 3: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

There you go Joey.  Hopefully these dictionary excerpts will help you understand what non-initiation of force means.

[joeyforpresident]

I'll clarify my stance, and leave this be.

But here is what I have been told: the NAP philosophy does not allow for the initiation of force. From the State, from your neighbor, etc.

I have no problem with that.

But it's when those philosophical ideas conflict with say, this issue I have posted about, irritate me. So in theory:

It is silly to spew a rant criticizing the NAP because there may be someone who expresses support for the NAP and believes that child porn is not a form of aggression,

See what I mean?


This is not "trolling," this is simply bringing up this weird notion that what I have read/studied/been told about NAP supports this type of behavior.

I'm simply saying I disagree with it, and if that is what NAP is, and would allow for, then I want no part of this.

That's not to say I'm not in agreement with many issues that everyone shares, and by no means does that mean there's to be a "duel" or whatever, but it's just a disagreement, a very strong disagreement.


And for that, I would say, NAP is not for me. If that philosophy allows for this "silly" argument because any common sense person can see that what I have posted definitely DOES have harm against an individual, then I don't want any part of it.


And if that doesn't make me "purist" for you people, oh well.

[Friday]

[Free libertarian]

If you have a couple of beers and squint really hard that Troll on the right kind of looks like a yellow haired version of the boxing promoter Don King. 

[AnarchoJesse]

I'm simply saying I disagree with it, and if that is what NAP is, and would allow for, then I want no part of this.

So you functionally disagree with a universal principle of non-aggression? Because that is all that matters at this point.

That's not to say I'm not in agreement with many issues that everyone shares, and by no means does that mean there's to be a "duel" or whatever, but it's just a disagreement, a very strong disagreement.

So I take it you're refusing my challenge?

And for that, I would say, NAP is not for me. If that philosophy allows for this "silly" argument because any common sense person can see that what I have posted definitely DOES have harm against an individual, then I don't want any part of it.

Does the actual act of viewing child-porn hurt someone, or is it the creation of it? Moreover, you make no indication as to whether or not you care about consent, and that is a big part.

And if that doesn't make me "purist" for you people, oh well.

Keep 'em comin', you inconsistent hack.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

Joey, you don't have to agree with everyone on what constitutes aggression to agree with the basic principle.  I will not initiate aggression as I understand it to mean.  There will be some things that one person believes is aggression, force or fraud that another person does not.  Where you draw the line is based on your beliefs and conscience.  I have been in situations where someone committed an act against me that I believe is an act of aggression, but I chose not to reciprocate the aggression because my conscience told me to forgive them instead of retaliating.  It appears that your focus is on others.  Who can control what others do?  I can't, so why try?  I can only control what I do, so I focus on trying to make sure I do what is right.  Even when others attack me, I try to remind myself that nobody is perfect and that regardless of what others do, I should try my best to do the right thing.  Chances are that you won't find two people who agree where all moral lines should be drawn.  That is not a valid reason to reject the principle as a whole. 

There are plenty of threads on the net about where the age of consent should be, and if you look around, you will find that laws in different states and different countries set the legal age of consent based on the belief of the majority or lawmakers in that political territory.  Unfortunately the subject is not a simple one.  I think we can agree that different people attain that level of maturity,  responsibility and awareness at different ages.  While some may reach that point at 18, others may reach it earlier or later.  This leaves lawmakers with a moral dilemma, and they choose an age that seems appropriate to them.  Whether or not you agree with their decision is based on your perspective.  Sometimes I have choices to make where I am not sure if something is an act of aggression, so when in doubt, I choose to not partake in that questionable act.  If I have moral reservations about a certain act, I will not participate in it, but if someone else does it, I am not going to attack them for it if there is no victim involved.  When someone does something wrong and there is a victim, then I think that whenever possible, the recourse should be something that compensates the victim for the harm that was done to them. 

While my definition of aggression may be different than yours and there are some areas where I am not sure where the line between aggression and a lack of aggression sits, I will not initiate anything that I believe may be aggression, and if someone else initiates something that may or may not be considered aggression, I will not reciprocate in a way that I believe is an act of aggression.  Sometimes it can be difficult to determine exactly where that line should be drawn, in which case, you should try to remain above reproach.  Sometimes in moral disagreements, you just need to agree to disagree and follow your conscience.  Everyone will be judged eventually.  I am not in a position to judge others, and I would suggest that you not try to claim the position of judge over others.  Rather than judging others' opinions and beliefs, share yours with them in a civil manner and try to explain the reasoning behind your beliefs and try to understand the reasoning behind their beliefs.  Sometimes after a meaningful discussion, we realize that we were wrong about something.  Other times, the other person will realize that they were wrong about something, and often in order to maintain the peace, we have to just agree to disagree until such time that someone changes their opinion.  Using hostility and ad hominem attacks will not convince anyone that you are right.  They will only convince them that you are a jerk.  If you disagree with someone, sharing your opinion in a civil manner, and backed up with evidence, is the best way to convert others to your way of thinking.

[Tom Sawyer]

This just in...
Not sure, but it looks like Joey, Zack and Chuck coming out of a Tijuana bar.

[Friday]

This just in...
Not sure, but it looks like Joey, Zack and Chuck coming out of a Tijuana bar.

Can't... stop... laughing... 

[Pat K]

  +1 for Roger.

[Peacemaker]

This just in...
Not sure, but it looks like Joey, Zack and Chuck coming out of a Tijuana bar.

Great photo!  Thanks for the laugh!

[J’raxis 270145]

Bwahaha...

Stick a fork in it; thread's done...

[Barry Cooper]

Joey is correct and has been instructed by me to totally disassociate himself from the crazy people on this forum.  Ian, I am disappointed in your posts and stance.  You got crazy earlier in the year by defending the L.E.A.P. member who still arrests for marijuana possession.  You heard my arguments on that issue and retracted your earlier stance.  You will have to do the same with this issue or I will separate myself from you and your station and support Joey in a lawsuit against you and whomever accuses him of being involved in any way with child porn. 

And to whoever posted with instructions to use your radio station to ruin Joey's political career,

Joey's political career is not decided by you, Ian or his station.  Joey will be working at the State Capitol of Texas in 2010.

I am preparing a statement and will post my stance on this issue sometime tomorrow on this thread so the other nuts can hear what a real Libertarian is suppose to be.

Barry Cooper

[FTL_Ian]

Barry,

You really should have called before posting this.  Did you read the thread?  There is not an accusation against Joey regarding any kind of porn here.  Even if there were, this is a message board where people make fun.  Don't take this internet stuff too seriously.

Also, do you have any idea of what Joey's history is on this forum?  He's been here since 2005.  He's grown a lot in that time, but obviously is having difficulty with the idea of not aggressing against his neighbors. 

In regards to political careers, I don't really pay attention to that stuff on my show.  We'd let you plug what you are doing politically on FTL because we like and respect you, Barry.  Though I'm dinging your Karma for backing Joey.