Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[wufwugy]

Welcome to argument. I'm not writing a book here. I'm just hitting you with the twitter-feed of my contentions. There's depth to them that I'd be glad to explore if you'd engage them. But you don't. You just brush them aside.

How can I brush off points that I don't even disagree with? In your version of the NAP, you are RIGHT. But that isn't NAP.

And I'm not confused by the word illegit or invalid. They're nonsense.

Dude. How can you even say this when your claim about the term is not the NAP claim? Illegitimacy has nothing to do with moralizing against others, but clarifying when violence is allowed to those who espouse the NAP.

[a500lbgorilla]

How can I brush off points that I don't even disagree with? In your version of the NAP, you are RIGHT. But that isn't NAP.

What is my version of NAP? Hint: it includes the word initiate.

Dude. How can you even say this when your claim about the term is not the NAP claim? Illegitimacy has nothing to do with moralizing against others, but clarifying when violence is allowed to those who espouse the NAP.

When violence is allowed.

Allowed? What do you mean by allowed? Allowed by whom? By you? By others? If violence isn't allowed, what stops it from happening?

[wufwugy]

When violence is allowed.

Allowed? What do you mean by allowed? Allowed by whom? By you? By others? If violence isn't allowed, what stops it from happening?

when violence is allowed to those who espouse the NAP.

Granted I should have said "allowed for". That is more clear.

The NAP applies only to those who espouse the NAP. Libertarians want more people to espouse the NAP, but I agree with you that it's a pipedream to think that the entire world could.

[a500lbgorilla]

Granted I should have said "allowed for". That is more clear.

The NAP applies only to those who espouse the NAP. Libertarians want more people to espouse the NAP, but I agree with you that it's a pipedream to think that the entire world could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZAL64E0DI#t=1h1m45s

This lecture is legitimate gold.

The NA principle is naive because someone who fully agrees with it will violate it eventually.

"What about hypocrisy?"
"Disastrously human. Not only are we capable of coming up with ideologies... but we have come up with the means to personally evade ithem over and over. ...The really scary person is the person who says "Everyone says X is criminal and I agree, and here is why I'm a special case right now... It doesn't count with me because when I did it, it means something different."
Everyone who espouses NA is still a threat to violate NA, though they'll find some way to frame it like they're not.

[wufwugy]

"What about hypocrisy?"
"Disastrously human. Not only are we capable of coming up with ideologies... but we have come up with the means to personally evade ithem over and over. ...The really scary person is the person who says "Everyone says X is criminal and I agree, and here is why I'm a special case right now... It doesn't count with me because when I did it, it means something different."
Everyone who espouses NA is still a threat to violate NA, though they'll find some way to frame it like they're not.

Of course they are, but that's irrelevant. The NAP is a personal ideology that frankly I don't think is that useful.

The bottom line is that libertarianism is not pacifism. The NAP, while being confusing, does not promote pacifism. In a stateless society, I think the weak and poor would have even more capacity for self-defense and the rich and powerful would have less capacity for violent initiation compared to today. Keep in mind that the state protects the initiation of violence by the rich and powerful and punishes the use of self-defense by the poor and weak. Even if your fear of a stateless society giving rise to new huge violent gangs is true, if I'm right it would mean that the weak and poor would have a greater capacity to keep those violent gangs less destructive than the current ones.