Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[Renton]

Literally the central belief of Libertarianism is that it's just not a problem.

Why do you think this? We're well aware of what a big problem violence is. There's nothing about the NAP that brushes off the constant existence of violence or the threat thereof. It just is critical of ALL initiation of violence, not just of that of the unauthorized sort. Again and again, libertarians are in favor of law and order, we just have a different view of what societal problems are so large that we need laws to solve them. Also, in case it needed to be said, most libertarians are statists and fully believe in a role for government, just a much more limited role.

[a500lbgorilla]

Why do you think this? We're well aware of what a big problem violence is. There's nothing about the NAP that brushes off the constant existence of violence or the threat thereof. It just is critical of ALL initiation of violence, not just of that of the unauthorized sort. Again and again, libertarians are in favor of law and order, we just have a different view of what societal problems are so large that we need laws to solve them. Also, in case it needed to be said, most libertarians are statists and fully believe in a role for government, just a much more limited role.

This is exactly why. It's critical of ALL initiation of violence, and finds that in its critical analysis of violence that there's no reason for it. I can find reason.

[wufwugy]

This is exactly why. It's critical of ALL initiation of violence, and finds that in its critical analysis of violence that there's no reason for it. I can find reason.

Rilla, you're still strawmanning the NAP. I'm not saying it's obvious though, because the majority of NAP claimants make the same mistake.

The NAP does not say "there is no reason for violence; therefore there would be no violence in Libertopia."

What the NAP says is that if you espouse the NAP, you are obligated to engage in violence only as self-defense. This accounts for any who do not espouse the NAP since any NAP adherent who is threatened is within the rights of his chosen philosophical framework to meet his aggressor in kind.

There WOULD be violence in Libertopia. You can bet every Boba Fett card you have that I would far more effectively use violence against lethal threats than I do in the United States, where I am largely a victim to unfair self-defense laws. I once nearly got mugged outside my school, but I escaped by my chinny chin chin. The would-be muggers then waited for me to return later in the week and sabotaged my car, costing thousands in damages. Had this been Libertopia, either where I parked my car would have been protected by security or I would have carried a firearm. In the case of the latter, instead of risking my life by running from the would-be muggers, their brains would have Monet'd the asphalt (or mine would).

This is not to say the solution to conflict in Libertopia would become more violence. It would likely become about less violence since the capacity and incentive for cooperation would increase. I'm only making this statement to show that Libertopia is not the pacifism you're describing it as.

[euphoricism]

Keller ruling means youre allowed to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states, wuf. You were not punished by muggers using self defense laws?? you were the victim? the self defense laws protect YOU!

The best point in favor of arming everyone is the "wild" west -- it was not wild at all. The reason the Gunfight at the OK Corral is famous is because it was so absurdly rare that a group of armed people would willingly confront another group of armed people and just start shooting.

Three people died in the most famous gunfight of the Wild west.

[wufwugy]

Keller ruling means youre allowed to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states, wuf. You were not punished by muggers using self defense laws?? you were the victim? the self defense laws protect YOU!

There is a great fear among many people that lethal self-defense has a big risk of resulting in aggressive prosecution. The reason I do not and probably never will carry is because I fear the chance of getting in serious trouble by doing the right thing is too high.