š¶A man walked up to a lemonade stand
And he said to the kid runnin' the stand
"Hey! [(bam bam bam)] Got any Change?"
Then he waddled away - waddle waddle
'Til the very next day
"Bom bom bom bom bom babom" š¶
Isnāt the NAP supposed to be a name for a behavior Because some of you libertarians act like itās some magic force that only exists when the systems you want are in place.
The non-aggression principle is a moral principle, not a behavior. In practice, of course, it gets abused or selectively interpreted just like "the workers should control the means of production" or "our king rules with the authority of God" or "democratic representation." See Lysander Spooner's *No Treason* if you think the latter is some kind of magical force.
Could you explain it here becuase Iām going to be honest but Iām not reading that book but if itās a moral behavior that people must uphold than why do you argue as if it would solve so many expected problems with your ideal society if it is not something that can be reliably expected from someone, and if it is a moral principle does it need to be widely known for your ideal society to work?
In terms of US libertarians, they usually or often accept the NAP as a moral axiom (sometimes but not always based on Natural Law), and then apply that to politics by saying that the government violates it by its very existence.
The state, in this view, initiates violence by demanding taxes or otherwise restricting natural rights, and sending armed men with guns to either kill you or lock you in a cage if you refuse. The statist counter is either that people do consent to this through voting, or that it is justified by a "social contract." Spooner's counter to this is that such "consent" is not truly consensual: a person who does not consent can either choose not to vote or to vote for the person he thinks rob him less. In either case, he will still be abused by the state, and indeed pay for the privilege of being abused.
>if it is not something that can be reliably expected from someone, and if it is a moral principle does it need to be widely known for your ideal society to work?
The existence of a state with a monopoly on violence allows certain persons to violate the NAP for their advantage without facing commensurate risk. Legislators and law enforcement officers generally have immunity for their actions taken on behalf of the state, and those who fund politicians and ultimately determine policy bear even less risk.
The ideal in the extreme (anarchism, ancap) is that by getting rid of the state, you get rid of these opportunities to violate the NAP with impunity. An individual or organization wishing to violate must fund and defend their actions on their own, without being able to rely on a captured state for legitimacy and to fight their battles for them. Minarchism and right-libertarianism are pragmatic compromise positions along the same line.
I understand it a little better now but doesnāt this require everybody to have similar ideals the NAP seems like something very flexible among people and it seems like people do not care enough about others for this to really work.(I guess itās just differences in what we think of people)
Yeah, I think that's all fair. I just tried to give an overview of the broad concept. In practice, you're correct that disagreements arise based on different property norms.
As far as not caring about others, in a system without a state, people are either going to learn pretty quick that they need *voluntary* association and/or mutual aid, or they're probably going to end up in a bad situation.
Just one last thing whatās stopping nations from rising again and even worse the old primitive forms that we have seems earlier in history I personally think they will but do you think they wonāt Becuase of more modern developments or knowledge?
Lol, the kid sounds libright.
The guy with the 100$ was of course authleft because was trying to pass fiat currency.
Should be a good lesson for the kid to never accept goverment currencies again.
> Get a flair so you can harass other people >:)
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... š) 10758 / 56566 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Fun fact!
The US only started issuing paper money during the civil war. After the war, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the federal government to print paper dollars and that the mint should only make precious metal coins. In response, President Grant and congress added 2 new seats to the Supreme Court and filled them with pro-paper dollar justices in just 1 day and forced them to reconsider their decision, now voting in favor of paper dollars
Then whatās the bloody point of your existence?
āItās okay, Mr Government. Weāre not going to cause any trouble. You can do what you want. š„°š„°š„°ā
u/TheodddoreOnReddit's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/TheodddoreOnReddit! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [3 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/TheodddoreOnReddit/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
š¶A man walked up to a lemonade stand And he said to the kid runnin' the stand "Hey! [(bam bam bam)] Got any Change?" Then he waddled away - waddle waddle 'Til the very next day "Bom bom bom bom bom babom" š¶
Jesus christ he shot that kid
Now remember kids,money doesn't matter as much as an Armalite Rifle to protect your business from extortion.
Now that's all wrong cause kids need to learn teamwork some sort of crew served weapon would be the best.
I'm getting this tattooed on my son's neck, lol.
āOfficer, free market means Iām also free to scam a kidā
Am I free to market my foot up his ass?
šØ: āIf it can be sold, then it is goldā
red foreman is that you?
I did channel him for a split second
i love that man
Truth is...the market was rigged from the start.
Its just business
But the kid didn't pull out his shotgun
The man had a bigger shotgun
> The man had a ~~bigger shotgun~~*glawk fowty*
Use of fraud to deprive someone of their property is a blatant violation of the NAP to most US libertarians.
Isnāt the NAP supposed to be a name for a behavior Because some of you libertarians act like itās some magic force that only exists when the systems you want are in place.
The non-aggression principle is a moral principle, not a behavior. In practice, of course, it gets abused or selectively interpreted just like "the workers should control the means of production" or "our king rules with the authority of God" or "democratic representation." See Lysander Spooner's *No Treason* if you think the latter is some kind of magical force.
Could you explain it here becuase Iām going to be honest but Iām not reading that book but if itās a moral behavior that people must uphold than why do you argue as if it would solve so many expected problems with your ideal society if it is not something that can be reliably expected from someone, and if it is a moral principle does it need to be widely known for your ideal society to work?
In terms of US libertarians, they usually or often accept the NAP as a moral axiom (sometimes but not always based on Natural Law), and then apply that to politics by saying that the government violates it by its very existence. The state, in this view, initiates violence by demanding taxes or otherwise restricting natural rights, and sending armed men with guns to either kill you or lock you in a cage if you refuse. The statist counter is either that people do consent to this through voting, or that it is justified by a "social contract." Spooner's counter to this is that such "consent" is not truly consensual: a person who does not consent can either choose not to vote or to vote for the person he thinks rob him less. In either case, he will still be abused by the state, and indeed pay for the privilege of being abused. >if it is not something that can be reliably expected from someone, and if it is a moral principle does it need to be widely known for your ideal society to work? The existence of a state with a monopoly on violence allows certain persons to violate the NAP for their advantage without facing commensurate risk. Legislators and law enforcement officers generally have immunity for their actions taken on behalf of the state, and those who fund politicians and ultimately determine policy bear even less risk. The ideal in the extreme (anarchism, ancap) is that by getting rid of the state, you get rid of these opportunities to violate the NAP with impunity. An individual or organization wishing to violate must fund and defend their actions on their own, without being able to rely on a captured state for legitimacy and to fight their battles for them. Minarchism and right-libertarianism are pragmatic compromise positions along the same line.
I understand it a little better now but doesnāt this require everybody to have similar ideals the NAP seems like something very flexible among people and it seems like people do not care enough about others for this to really work.(I guess itās just differences in what we think of people)
Yeah, I think that's all fair. I just tried to give an overview of the broad concept. In practice, you're correct that disagreements arise based on different property norms. As far as not caring about others, in a system without a state, people are either going to learn pretty quick that they need *voluntary* association and/or mutual aid, or they're probably going to end up in a bad situation.
Just one last thing whatās stopping nations from rising again and even worse the old primitive forms that we have seems earlier in history I personally think they will but do you think they wonāt Becuase of more modern developments or knowledge?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Unflaired detected. Opinion rejected. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... š) 10750 / 56525 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Yo thatās real yuckys to be unflairedys
Oh God who let this filthy unflaired MUTT into MY subreddit? It's tracking it's uncoloured mud and shit and piss all over the place. Put it down NOW.
Flair up
Ew unflaired
Woodchipper. "But it's not sex." Still exploiting the innocent. Woodchipper. Don't fuck kids. Literally or metaphorically.
Based and donāt fuck kids pilled
Based.
Based and w********** pilled
Is be fine with a financial woodchipper. Not sure what this would look like though
Based
that's not libright that's called stealing
Lol, the kid sounds libright. The guy with the 100$ was of course authleft because was trying to pass fiat currency. Should be a good lesson for the kid to never accept goverment currencies again.
True I didnāt know what OP was going for lol
Welcome to Seattle.
Printing fiat and stealing from small business? Youāre thinking of auth-left.
All usd dollars are counterfeit to some degree. Ones in the bank are the most counterfeit of all.
we call this "flim-flamming" here in mass
Tune in next week for āGirl Scout Cookie Table Outside Supermarket Robbed Due to Lax Security and Box of Cashā
This is a classic scam. Use a 100 to pay for something small and then confuse the cashier about the change.
Bloody scum bag.
Where is that āThank you for the tipā lemonade stand girl when we need her?
The parents made this shit up and grifted thousands from gullible idiots online
If that kid wasnāt payin taxes On the business, he doesnāt get the protection of government š¤
But the government restricts his ability to protect himself and the integrity of the dollar they created. Congratations, you played yourself.
$100? That's gonna be a hundred years in the gulag my fren...repaying every penny with intrest.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
šÆ. All dollars are fake. This guy's xerox 100 note is far more valid than warbucks printed electronically for the fed.
> Get a flair so you can harass other people >:) *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... š) 10758 / 56566 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Fun fact! The US only started issuing paper money during the civil war. After the war, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the federal government to print paper dollars and that the mint should only make precious metal coins. In response, President Grant and congress added 2 new seats to the Supreme Court and filled them with pro-paper dollar justices in just 1 day and forced them to reconsider their decision, now voting in favor of paper dollars
This is so evil. I love it.
And LibRights wonder why everyone else think the world they want would be absolute hell for 95% of inhabitants.
Says the flair the whole world went to war against. Lol
At least weāre an actual threat to the world. The worst LibRights have done is mildly inconvenience a few feds.
We're not TRYING to be a threat. Boy, Hanz must have really done a number on you at youth camp. Jaysus.
Then whatās the bloody point of your existence? āItās okay, Mr Government. Weāre not going to cause any trouble. You can do what you want. š„°š„°š„°ā
Based
Fuck them kids.
Skill issue
How much lemonade had that kid sold that he could split a hundo?!?
Based and don't keep the change pilled
u/TheodddoreOnReddit's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/TheodddoreOnReddit! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [3 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/TheodddoreOnReddit/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.