Search results

There's a couple ways to argue for it, including that it's axiomatic because to argue against it means you want to harm people who don't deserve it, but ultimately it is an axiom that can be accepted or rejected. Just like all moral systems, it rests on an unproveable belief.

Kind of right, both these things (obligations that come from being born in a country, and dealing with someone else's NAP) are non consensual on your part, and thus aren't pacts or agreements. The difference is that with the country obligation stuff, according to the NAP, you have no obligation...

This is true. These are agreements that are made because you entered someone else's property, and they have the right to kick you out, and thus the right to make rules about being there. But these are agreements that both parties consciously agree to. You, by going onto the property knowing the...

You apparently don't know what pacts are, because what you are talking about is not a pact, and also not the NAP. First, pacts are agreements between two people that both knowingly make. But I don't need the other person to agree to anything to do the NAP. Whenever someone interacts with me...

So you only have a right to agress until you aren't agressed, and only to the agressors. This isn't unlimited. So yeah, everyone has a moral right to not pay taxes or register for the draft, and resist attempts to force them to do so. But in practical terms, that's difficult. Fortunately...

No, the NAP very much isn't a pact. It's a morality. You don't need others in order to follow the morality. Also wrong. The NAP applies when you first become alive (not trying to get split off into a tangent about abortion here, so please don't). Yes, it applies to interactions between parents...

I mean, in the perfect utopia there is no government either. It's AnCap heaven. Obviously, this doesn't work, as even if you get it set up, warlords take over.

Segregation, as a legal policy, is bad because it violates the property rights (and thus the NAP) of the business owner, as they have no choice but to segregate. Other segregation was done under threat by the Klan. But if a business wants to segregate, I think it's wrong (you can have morality...

Oh, totally. That's why I'm morally an Ancap, but not practically. No, it exists a lot. Most worker certification programs, Fair Trade certification, cage free certification, kosher certification, etc, all exists because people care how things are made, not from government intervention, because...

Communism doesn't advertise freedom, it advertises equality. No, they really don't. Libertarians want personal freedom. Marxists want equality. They don't promise freedom. Marxists admit this (from an old post of mine): Socialism is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. This is also...

I agree with this. What I was trying to get at was saying that libertarian ideals still advance, despite not being advanced under the libertarian flag. The claim has a lot of proof. Libertarianism in the United States is pro freedom, in both the economic and social sense, and this derives from...

Because I made a coherent argument about it before? Because repeated libertarian philosophers have agreed with me? Basic research which you should have done if you at if your claim to once be a libertarian is true?

No, seriously. Back up your claim that the NAP ideologically relies on utilitarianism, not historically.

How is it missing things? You simply don't understand what libertarianism is, apparently, given that you seem to think it relies on utilitarianism.

So? I fail to see why the history of an idea applies to the usefulness of the idea. In fact, attacking the origin of an idea instead of the idea is a logical fallacy. I dont give a shit who had the idea. It's a good idea.

No, we're back to your idiocy. Where in my chain of logic was homo economicus assumed? Oh right, it wasn't. Your like talking to a brick wall, and half as useful.

Now can you acknowledge that libertarianism doesn't depend on homo economicus?

It's acceptable for both the NAP and Duty being important because these are axioms. Everything else should be derived from the axioms you choose. So using your axiom of Duty, explain why the current world order is bad. Also, it's kinda funny how you won't respond to me now.

It's entirely what they mean. Exactly. That's the point. All moral basis rely on base assumptions. It's just that libertarianism has a good one.

Because it derives from the NAP. And arguing against the NAP requires being pro hurting people or pro theft. Now if you are in favor of hurting or stealing from people who aren't doing bad things, that's fine. But almost every ethical system will consider your bad person. This is why the NAP is...