The Non-Aggression Principle Just Does Not Work

[Peacemaker]

I guess he really got Jesse worked up.
I find Joey's posts funny.

Me too, I find his posts funny as hell.  So I have a hard time taking him seriously.   But on the flip side, on this thread, I think Joey and Barry are taking some of the comments here Way too seriously.

So now a "statement" from Barry over the comments on Joey's thread?  (loved the KopBusters Barry! Keep up the great work!) 

Bottomline, I think this is much ado about nothing but I have to give credit to Joey (The Aggresser) for doing a great job of potentially harming what were positive relationships    (I guess this would be one example of Joey's Leadership skills).

[AntonLee]

He'll lead all the people to the promised land, where he as supreme leader can make certain that no man can have sex with a donkey.  He will install telescreens that watch your every move to make sure you comply.

[Moebius Tripp]

In order to be considered a Real libertarian^tm you must send a 500 word essay along with $25.00 application fee to: Moebius Tripp, 1 Free Way, Deadwood, USA.  Please allow six weeks for determination.  Upon acceptance, you will be allowed to use the Real libertarian^tm designation on a yearly basis for a mere $150.00.  Only one application per person per year will be considered.  All others are hereby put on notice to cease and desist using Real libertarian^tm on pain of litigation and daily spitting upon your photographs.

[Kat Kanning]

LOL Moebius

I noticed on Joey's Myspace that he's got a whole page dedicated to explaining why the people in Waxahachie, TX don't like him.  It's kind of sad, really.

[Becky Thatcher]

In order to be considered a Real libertarian^tm you must send a 500 word essay along with $25.00 application fee to: Moebius Tripp, 1 Free Way, Deadwood, USA.  Please allow six weeks for determination.  Upon acceptance, you will be allowed to use the Real libertarian^tm designation on a yearly basis for a mere $150.00.  Only one application per person per year will be considered.  All others are hereby put on notice to cease and desist using Real libertarian^tm on pain of litigation and daily spitting upon your photographs.

  Hilarious!

BTW, I love your screen name, very clever.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

In order to be considered a Real libertariantm you must send a 500 word essay along with $25.00 application fee to: Moebius Tripp, 1 Free Way, Deadwood, USA.  Please allow six weeks for determination.  Upon acceptance, you will be allowed to use the Real libertariantm designation on a yearly basis for a mere $150.00.  Only one application per person per year will be considered.  All others are hereby put on notice to cease and desist using Real libertariantm on pain of litigation and daily spitting upon your photographs.

Damn capitalists. 

[Moebius Tripp]

Thanks, Kat & Becky! 

Darn tootin', Kevin.

[David]

Funny, I remember threads similar to this about pacifism, now it is the NAP. 
I think Tom Sawyer mentioned it already, but Zack Bass had not even been mentioned, the donkey sex and all, till Joey brought it up in another thread.  To those new to the forum, rest assured, we do not spend our time in our private lives talking about donkey sex.     I have better things to do in nh. 

Joey stop threatening Ian, if you cannot handle discussion then please leave, Jesse, please stop trying to fight the good republican. 

I have to agree with a pacifist friend of mine, that those who rely on force, and only force, even defensive, usually put less effort in trying to avoid the conflict in the first place. 
The analogy would be driving.  Aggressive drivers get into more accidents than defensive drivers, simply because they are more likely to get hit.  People make mistakes, but aggressive drivers are too busy upholding their precious 'right of way' to be on the lookout for the mistakes others make. 

[John Shaw]

I have to agree with a pacifist friend of mine, that those who rely on force, and only force, even defensive, usually put less effort in trying to avoid the conflict in the first place. 

I dunno about that. Suggesting that people who believe in defensive force are more likely to look for trouble is a bit of a generalization, don't you think?

<<<Believes in overwhelming retaliatory force and hasn't had any sort of confrontation beyond harsh words in around 14 years.*


*With the exception of kicking a drunken, trespassing bum out of my shed, and a very short stint (9 months) in the military ending in me being politely asked to leave, which I'll regret for the rest of my life. (Not the leaving, the joining.)

[Recumbent ReCycler]

Barry, the issue I have is the fact that Joey is claiming that the NAP doesn't work.  By saying that he doesn't want any part of the NAP, he's suggesting that he supports the initiation of force.  To support his claims, he's using what I think can best be described as a straw man argument.  By supporting him on this issue, you make it look like you also support the initiation of force.  Based on your videos and what I've heard you say in person, I had the impression that you are opposed to the initiation of force.  Where do you stand on the initiation of aggression/force/violence?  I think the definition of aggression is a separate and complicated issue that should be discussed separately, as it would take years of discussion for just two people to come to a consensus as to where the lines should be drawn, and there will likely be no consensus between groups larger than two.  Also, Joey didn't define "work" as it was used in his statement.  I think that if I try to make sure I don't initiate aggression against anyone, and another person doesn't initiate aggression against anyone, there's a pretty good chance that we will get along in a peaceful manner without any violence between us.  If Joey said that we can't make others follow the NAP, then I would agree with him on that point.  We can't make others follow our moral compass, but we can do our best to be a good example to others and to educate them.  Will others initiate violence against us regardless of whether or not we follow the NAP?  Of course they will, but I think if we follow the NAP, we will reduce the amount of aggression in society as a whole.  While we can't control others, we can do our best to do the right thing regardless of what others are doing.  Please reconsider your earlier statement.

[Barterer]

Hey John, great to see you here! Welcome to the big pond, big fish 

*With the exception of kicking a drunken, trespassing bum out of my shed, and a very short stint (9 months) in the military ending in me being politely asked to leave, which I'll regret for the rest of my life. (Not the leaving, the joining.)

* and that purse-snatching bum you took out with your car, and that little bastard kid-of-cop vandal that you scared off with a gun   

[BillKauffman]

Joey is claiming that the NAP doesn't work.  By saying that he doesn't want any part of the NAP, he's suggesting that he supports the initiation of force.  To support his claims, he's using what I think can best be described as a straw man argument.

There are two issues:

1. consent of a child
2. images of child pornography in other people's possession

At what age do you believe children can consent?
Below that age do you believe anything the child does at the request of another (other than a parent) that could be harmful is fraud?

If yes, what is your opinion about the dissemination of images of that fraudulent act involving a minor?

[grasshopper]

   Well, let me see, Hmmm.
 I have had a non aggressive standard in my life for most of it, except for a few testosterone filled times in my youth.
 If I have a clear head, I'd rather ask the person to leave me alone and run away like I usually do.
 It is not worth hurting or killing a person because they are stupid or sick in the head.
 There are many instances in a persons life where they have to make a decision to use force to protect one self, weather it be a push, to turn and run away or to try to get out of a situation or to hold their tong in a situation that might turn volatile.
 I do believe that there is a responsibility to protect the innocent, whomever they might be, and I know that in a way that each and every one of us would do at least something to stop a "real threat".
 As a threat I do NOT mean a 16 YO kid smoking pot, or a lunatic at night all alone driving like a dangerous moron on PCP, seeing God and naked doing 500000 MPH with a ford LTD, 70s vintage.
 If you see a man hitting his wife, is this a reason to confront the person short of violence?  I believe so.
 If a child is bleeding from his or her ass from being raped by a person, should you confront that person and attempt to have them stop their felony? absolutely.
 If a tyrannical government goes over the top and starts to stuff people in trucks in the middle of the night to send them to death camps or other nice places for liquidation, is this a good reason to stop them with violence? absolutely.
 If there is nobody hurt from a so called "crime", I say, "who cares", but a violent Felony is a different case.
 I would not sit around and let you kill someone without reason anymore than you'd allow me to, and this is what tyrants and bully's understand, the consequences of force, should force be "necessary", and the threshold for force should be set very high.
 What thins you?  Im I still not getting it????  
 Ed.  S.
 

[John Shaw]

* and that purse-snatching bum you took out with your car, and that little bastard kid-of-cop vandal that you scared off with a gun   

Oh yeah.

[Riddler]

Joey is claiming that the NAP doesn't work.  By saying that he doesn't want any part of the NAP, he's suggesting that he supports the initiation of force.  To support his claims, he's using what I think can best be described as a straw man argument.

There are two issues:

1. consent of a child
2. images of child pornography in other people's possession

At what age do you believe children can consent?
Below that age do you believe anything the child does at the request of another (other than a parent) that could be harmful is fraud?

If yes, what is your opinion about the dissemination of images of that fraudulent act involving a minor?

ehhh.
if the subject is still considered a ''child'', there should be no such fucking thing as ''consent'', where sexual exploitation is concerned.
that it needs to be spelled out for some people, IS the thing to be concerned about.
18, or over?
knock your tits off
maybe it's 16?
where does ''childhood'' end? certainly, in most peoples eyes, anyone under 18 is a child.