What does Veeky Forums think of the NAP? Does it hold up?

What does Veeky Forums think of the NAP? Does it hold up?

Define aggression, and define the principle of ownership which isn't based on aggression.

>aggression
Violence or violent coercion
>principle of ownership which isn't based on aggression
Not sure about this one, this might be where Moldbug comes in

No. Creating and maintaining the existence of private property and capitalism in general requires aggression to exclude others from use and to force compliance on those who do not agree with liberal/ancap entitlement.

>Not sure about this one, this might be where Moldbug comes in
Maybe you should think about that if you think NAP has any meaning if I can't define ownership without aggression. Also maybe you should post somewhere other than Veeky Forums if you don't like completely unjustified aggression. Try tumblr or something.

It prioritizes inanimate objects too much; basing a system of ethics on property leads to all kind of fucked up conclusions.

You're retarded

Autism incarnate.

Bump

The concept of "non-aggression" is useless when you need to be preemptive towards a future aggressor.

The nonaggression principle is the the statement “you leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone”

Any system that requires everyone agree to the same idea is doomed before it even starts.

If something is my property; then I have justified control over it.

That justification comes from negotiation between self-interested individuals. That negotiation extends to the self. I can yield aspects of my autonomy in order to gain leverage in the negotiation to acquire control over a scarce good. Or in plain english, I can work at a job to get a wage to get stuff.

It's a rationalization for a system which only prioritizes property rights to the complete exclusion of human rights. It is the philosophy of the rural landowner, whose property is his own world, and he is doesn't have to share it with anyone else. Outside of people like that, it has little influence or persuasive power

Molyneme shit

>human rights
Can you be more spooked?

If you think the NAP comes from Molyneux you seriously need to read more.

>Can you be more spooked?
Property rights are just as spooky as human rights because they're two sides of the same coin. If you can deny one, you can deny the other.

That's why the NAP is self-defeating, and simply doesn't resonate with large numbers of people

>If you can deny one, you can deny the other.
If you deny property rights, you get shot. If you deny human rights, you get whined at.

>If you deny property rights, you get shot. If you deny human rights, your population revolts

fixed it for you.

>If you deny human rights, your population revolts
This is so fucking dumb, when has this ever happened?

We hold these truths to be self evident...

Lmao

They were talking about property rights

Color revolutions
Arab Spring
Haiti revolution
Mexican revolution
Liberation of Bangladesh
East Timor resistance
etc.

>USG pays off citizens to overthrow government they don't like
>Look at these people standing up for their natural rights!

Except the US was freaking out about at least half of these revolutions you tool

>>If you deny property rights, you get shot. If you deny human rights, your population revolts
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I had an NAP with Queek. That didn't end well and the fucker backstabbed me. Fuck peace.

Skaven don't have rights, let aline property rights

You are in a room. Someone who you may be able to physically overpower is planning to shoot you. They have a to load their gun, and so are blocking the doorway so you can’t leave while they load it.

Now, using aggression you could: forcibly remove the gun from them, or force them aside and make an escape, at the very least. If you are “too enlightened for such things” and can’t be a big meanie and pull something out of someone’s hands because it’s too violent, or shove them aside because “that’s just wrong, dude.” You are forced to stand there like an idiot while they load the gun and muster you with it.

Wrong. It’s wrong.

Violent coercion is against the NAP yiu retard.

if they force you to stay inside they are violating the nap and you are free to beat their brains in.

You're thinking of pacifism, not NAP.

Yes.

You are right, I had misunderstood and was completely wrong.

In that case, it is interesting. Basically: “refrain from using violence unless you have to and don’t be the initial aggressor/oppressor.”