The Non-Aggression Principle Just Does Not Work

[Caleb]

I love it.  I'd love to see Joey try to sue Ian for libel.     "Your honor, he said mean things about me!"  Probably get slapped with a fine for wasting the court's time.

Although there's a sense in which Joey is right:  these sorts of things are not the purpose of freedom, they are a sad consequence. And I think it's a mistake to fall into the trap of letting these arguments frame the discussion.  The fact is that, while I am not a fan of bestiality, I'd rather live in a world where the occasional sicko has goat/man sex than in a world where our lives are under constant surveillance and others reserve the right to decide which sexual practices are permitted and which are verboten.  Freedom has, as a necessary condition, the freedom to choose badly.

[thinkliberty]

And you would all be wrong.


NAP or no NAP, you guys are wrong.


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.

You need to site proof of why they are wrong.

You would not join Gandhi in participation of NAP, if he were still alive?  Are you saying Gandhi was wrong? Do you hate the philosophy of Gandhi? or just dislike it?

[Free libertarian]

 So this isn't gonna turn into another "hypothetical donkey fucker"  thread is it?  Cuz we used up all the good jokes on that one already.     

[AnarchoJesse]

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.

I consider this an overt threat to my person, and for this, I feel it is necessary to challenge you to a duel.

If you think violence will solve problems, let us see you put your money where your mouth is. I'll be around Taproom next Tuesday, so feel free to pick a means with which to satisfy this challenge.

[FTL_Ian]

He's not worth it, Jesse.

[AnarchoJesse]

He's not worth it, Jesse.

I don't think he would be-- but the point wasn't to actually fight him or some such, but just see how willing he is to put his barbaric views into plainsight and action.

[thinkliberty]

I don't think he would be-- but the point wasn't to actually fight him or some such, but just see how willing he is to put his barbaric views into plainsight and action.

I would love to see this as an exhibition match in a boxing or MMA ring. If you guys are both willing I will do my best make it happen somewhere.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

By the very definitions, reasons, arguments and blatant attacks I have heard, read, seen and studied coming from the Grafton Gangsters ("Zack Bass," Bobby Y Emory, Chuck Geshlider), the elephant in the room in this discussion over the "Non-Aggression Principle" is the belief -- shared by the once-convicted Larry Pendarvis/Zack Bass -- that the State cannot, should not and will not stop or "initiate force" for someone who wants to view/distribute/buy/sell child pornography.

I mean, if you people think it's against NAP to allow the governing bodies to do all the other extremist things you all have advocated (mainly in the MidlothianTexas.net Yahoo Group), including animal sex, etc., then it's not a stretch -- again, pointing to the Pendarvis case -- to guess that you guys advocate the asinine notion that you can view/distribute/buy/sell child pornography.


And you would all be wrong.


NAP or no NAP, you guys are wrong.


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.


And if that doesn't make me purist-libertarian enough for you, so be it.

This post made no sense to me.  How do you equate child porn with the NAP?  I believe in the NAP, but I've never seen child porn, nor do I condone it.  They are totally different and unrelated things.  To suggest that believing in the NAP means that you support child porn is asinine and ridiculous.  If you wanted to debate what the punishment should be for possessing child porn, I think that would be a more sensible thing to rant about.  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,

[Russell Kanning]

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.

I consider this an overt threat to my person, and for this, I feel it is necessary to challenge you to a duel.

If you think violence will solve problems, let us see you put your money where your mouth is. I'll be around Taproom next Tuesday, so feel free to pick a means with which to satisfy this challenge.

that is just about perfect
fight fight fight fight

[BillKauffman]

How do you equate child porn with the NAP?  I believe in the NAP, but I've never seen child porn, nor do I condone it.  They are totally different and unrelated things.  To suggest that believing in the NAP means that you support child porn is asinine and ridiculous.  If you wanted to debate what the punishment should be for possessing child porn, I think that would be a more sensible thing to rant about.  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,

The point is that the logical conclusion of NAP is that there is no force involved in:

1. anything you want to do with your property (animals)
2. anything you want to do with another person who capable of consenting (children)

The question then regarding child porn is...at what age can a child consent and how to enforce without violating NAP.

[Puke]

Going by what some people have been prosecuted on, I've watched child porn (Rape even!) in a packed theater!

It's called "The Last House On the Left".
A horror film in which a 17yo girl gets raped.

People have been prosecuted for having Simpsons Porn (Cartoons!!).

Just thought I'd make that point. I don't know who this tard Joey is or what this thread is even about.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

How do you equate child porn with the NAP?  I believe in the NAP, but I've never seen child porn, nor do I condone it.  They are totally different and unrelated things.  To suggest that believing in the NAP means that you support child porn is asinine and ridiculous.  If you wanted to debate what the punishment should be for possessing child porn, I think that would be a more sensible thing to rant about.  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,

The point is that the logical conclusion of NAP is that there is no force involved in:

1. anything you want to do with your property (animals)
2. anything you want to do with another person who capable of consenting (children)

The question then regarding child porn is...at what age can a child consent and how to enforce without violating NAP.

So then the issue isn't really about the NAP.  It's about the age of consent and enforcement methods.  I practice the NAP.  If I am not sure about whether something is aggression, I choose to err on the side of caution and try to avoid anything that might be considered aggression.  You can't really control how others behave.  You can only control your own behavior.  I focus on doing what is right, and let others focus on their own behavior.  As far as enforcement of laws go, there are plenty of people who want to be the judge, jury and executioner.  I am not interested in punishing others, although if someone is harming another, I would step in to end the harm, but I would leave the punishment to others.  Everyone will be judged eventually.  I am not the judge.

[AnarchoJesse]

I don't think he would be-- but the point wasn't to actually fight him or some such, but just see how willing he is to put his barbaric views into plainsight and action.

I would love to see this as an exhibition match in a boxing or MMA ring. If you guys are both willing I will do my best make it happen somewhere.

The challenge has been issued, man. It's up to him to pick the place and means, by approximation of most dueling codes.

[cxxguy]

Can one make child porn without initiation of force or fraud?


I'm not sure that's possible.  I guess it depends on what your definitions are.  Kids will run around naked voluntarily.  It can take a great deal of effort, with some, to get them to keep their clothes *on*.  If you snap pictures of this, is it porn?  I don't  know.  Is it aggression?  Probably not.

Then again, there are ages at which a child will not consent to sexual activity.  They just don't have the interest.  If you forced them into such behavior, would it be aggression?  Of course.  Would pictures of it be porn?  I don't know.  I doubt it would do anything for me.  But what would the problem be?  I'd argue that the primary problem would be the act of violence, not the pictures thereof.  War correspondents take pictures of violence all the time.  Some sickos might get a charge out of the pictures.  But the real problem is not the pictures, or the fact that some sickos might get a charge out of the pictures, but the fact of the violence itself.

[Peacemaker]

Emphatic proclamations and bold text do not an argument make.

Good point Dale.  Joey's argument is incredibly immature and very aggressive.

And what's with his "leaves you open for a potential legal challenge" threat?  So QUICK to threaten Force. 

He can call himself whatever he wants but whatever he does, he should not use the word Libertarian in his description anywhere, because he's a Big Government Man, who thrives on using the intiation of force, against others, when he disagrees with them.  Nothing new here.