Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[wufwugy]

Rilla, you have misinterpreted the NAP. In your frame, your points would have accuracy. But that isn't NAP. However you're not alone, many libertarians misinterpret NAP too. Even the guys who made the OP video misinterpret it on the margins. Whenever they have Thaddeus Russell on, they tend to get into heated debate that nudges towards what their misinterpretation is.

The NAP is the ideal that initiation of force is illegitimate. The operative word is "initiation". If you adhere to the NAP and you are threatened, you are fully within your rights as defined by the principle to defend yourself.

When we use this tool to evaluate our current society and a hypothetical stateless society, I think we find that the current society heavily protects the initiation of force and heavily subverts self-defense from that force. If this is true, then your concerns of the problem of violence are more relevant to the state world instead of the non-state world.

I am truly unworried about violent gangs uprising in the type of stateless society in the video. The easiest thing in the world would be for the productive people to put bullets in their brains. The key is that when that would be done so by self-defense and contract with other productive people, we would have finally eliminated the state.

[a500lbgorilla]

Rilla, you have misinterpreted the NAP. In your frame, your points would have accuracy. But that isn't NAP. However you're not alone, many libertarians misinterpret NAP too. Even the guys who made the OP video misinterpret it on the margins. Whenever they have Thaddeus Russell on, they tend to get into heated debate that nudges towards what their misinterpretation is.

The NAP is the ideal that initiation of force is illegitimate. The operative word is "initiation". If you adhere to the NAP and you are threatened, you are fully within your rights as defined by the principle to defend yourself.

Yeah, I got that. All my points still stand.

As a further point, what does it mean for an act of aggression to be illegitimate or invalid? Invalidity doesn't stop it. Illegitimacy doesn't taint it's consequences. It's like saying initiating violence is evil. Great, so what?

[wufwugy]

Yeah, I got that. All my points still stand.

As a further point, what does it mean for an act of aggression to be illegitimate or invalid? Invalidity doesn't stop it. Illegitimacy doesn't taint it's consequences. It's like saying initiating violence is evil. Great, so what?

The points don't stand, though. They're addressing a strawman.

The use of illegitimacy in the NAP is to say that "if somebody initiates violence, this principle we espouse that we call the NAP says that the initiator is in the wrong; therefore you can defend yourself without fear of breaking the principle".

I don't personally espouse the NAP. I'm with Thad, the philosophy of self-interest is more descriptive and easier to understand. It also makes the NAP redundant. Like you, I was initially confused by the word "illegitimate". The NAP accidentally seems more abstract and inconsequential than intended.

[a500lbgorilla]

The points don't stand, though. They're addressing a strawman.

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.

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

[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.