So what exactly is wrong with NAP?

>i have all the wealth and power
>i break the nap

What exactly do you plan to do about it kid?

It's the non-aggression principle. It's an ideal that we should try to live by and it essentially boils down to "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone."

It's hard to tell if most people are memeing or they legitimately don't understand how an ideal libertarian society would work. They seem to take this idea of a NAP and assume that means there can't be any government but that's ridiculous. There is a legitimate role for government and one of those reasons is arbitration. If somebody violates the NAP there is liability, if someone dumps toxic waste on your property you take them to court and get paid. That is the disincentive for violating the NAP. The goal is not a society with no government or regulation, but a society with minimal government and regulation.

The problem then is that to have a government strong enough to hold all people responsible for their transgressions, you must (by definition) have a government stronger than any other agent in the country. Which is one open to exactly the kinds of abuses of power libertarians want to avoid. So it's unworkable IRL.
t. pessimist lolbertarian

The modern US government is stronger right now then it could ever be in a perfect libertarian society but I wouldn't say the US government is not ultimately beholden to the people. The 2nd amendment is the safety valve that allows people to overthrow the government at any time, it's what keeps the government in check, and that wouldn't be any different in a libertarian society.

anclaps unironically believe in private courts where I suppose you pay to get fucked in the ass

What do you mean private courts?

hired arbitrators or something

>What exactly do you plan to do about it kid?
Wake up.

Pollution of all sorts.
The fact that it's morally and ethically permissible to let a 50 babies die because you don't want to walk 10 meters.

I got that I'm just not understanding where you got that from. What gave you the impression that libertarians want private courts?

Some people will always naturally be more powerful than others. By extension some groups of people will always be more powerful than others. But we know there is no being behind doing, working becoming. And power is always expressed as the imposition of will Re: violence of some form. lolbertarians don't understand this because they are illiterate fucktards who are unironically stupider than communists. NAP absolute retard tier.

power only exists when its used, so no, not always

You are fucking delusional. Where was the second mememendment keeping your government in check during countless useles wars or when Obama drove.you to depts unforeseen

But it is tho. Morally, at least. Maybe not ethically.
This is why utilitarians should be banned from office.

>or when Obama drove.you to depts unforeseen
wut...

>Pollution of all sorts.
Coase Theorem.
>The fact that it's morally and ethically permissible to let a 50 babies die because you don't want to walk 10 meters.
It is. Assuming you are not responsible for the conditions leading to their impending demise.

debts.

or when Bush tricked you into attacking Iraq.

or when Obama made you attack Afghanistan when SAUDIS HIT YOU

I can only assume the people didn't want to end those wars enough to take up arms against their own government. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean the option wasn't or isn't there.

Deficits don't matter and we invaded Afghanistan on the premise that it was a hotbed of planning and training not the ideological source of terrorism.

>or when Bush tricked you into attacking Iraq.
It was in the works since the 90's. Bush was largely tricked by Cheney and Rumsfeld who were also tricked by Chalabi who was probably working for Iran.

There have been a number of civilian uprisings since the founding of the USA and all have been crushed.

>What are the Coal Wars
For a long time the government in America has been too strong to be fixed through revolution. We'd need a world-destabilizing event to right things now.

There certainly has. I'm not sure what your point is though.

>When I tell people to learn basic economics, I really mean that they should only learn basic economics

The government snuffing out small rebellions throughout history only tells me that not enough people felt strongly enough to rebel. Surely if enough people had risen up in arms the government would have fallen.

Historical evidence indicates that the second amendment is highly optimistic regarding the ability of the people to check the government's power. It's just some words on paper.

This. Second Amendment means nothing

You're right it's words on paper, but it what it guarantees is what is important, and that's the ownership of firearms. An armed population will always be a danger to the government no matter how big it gets. There will never be enough policeman and military to enforce a nationwide police state when every citizen is a potential assassin.

Regardless, its impossible for a first world countries government to maintain itself through force.

No it tells you that its a suicidal task because the government is far too powerful.

It can be suicidal, certainly. Not always though. Sometimes it works out really well, like when the 13 colonies rebelled from England.

That's why I said "world destabilizing event" is necessary. Unless almost the entire populace rises up as one, the government will win.

What if I actually believe those miners deserved to get machine gunned for being SJWs?

You would be wrong in your assumptions. Also that's irrelevant to the efficacy of their rebellion.
Nice /pol/-falseflagging

This is more about the subtle stuff, like driving a car or light pollution

So let's say you've got your minimal government. What keeps large business owners and banks from bribing politicians into intervening in the economy on their behalf.

Because that's basically how capitalism works irl.

I don't disagree. It would take a significant event to cause enough outrage among the population. The option is there. That's what's important.

The second amendment doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing though. The people in government generally don't want to gun down there citizens if it can be avoided which can cause them to be more charitable in their negotiations with the population. The very threat of violence, even if there's no chance of overthrowing the government can be enough to protect the people from tyranny.

>Coal Wars
If they can get away with it the government will absolutely use force. We have much less power than you think.

National Workers' Party sounds even more ultra-rightwing than NSDAP

If we privatise everything, then there will be no government to bribe. Service providers would be forced to compete fair and square for the consumer's buck, that's just the way the market works. Punishing the indolent and rewarding the enterpreneur, there's no is truly no better justice

I don't know. I think a better question is how do we stop it now?

I think one way to do it would be to deregulate the economy, to take the power away from the government so there would ultimately be no point in buying the politicians. Make it so they can't intervene in the economy.

So if you don't have the state's power monopoly how do you keep companies from hiring private defense forces and basically becoming states.

That was completely different because they were a colony and had distance between themselves and their overlords. It was also a better move to cut the colonies loose because it had become so expensive to maintain them.

You gotta remember the strikers where unlawfully occupying or even destroying private property. You can't fault the owners for intervening

Keep in mind that a libertarian government doesn't mean no government. I think the government has a legitimate role is stopping people from killing each other. We don't want to live in a road warrior universe.

>consequentialism

literally kill yourself pleb

you expel them from the libertarian social order when you see them trying to do so

nothing theoretically, but its useless on its own.

this

not that guy but first you talk about minimal government then now you talk about no government at all?
pick one.
if you're talking about privatizing the legal system then that's fucking retarded.
also, thinking service providers won't collude to standardize prices as they currently do is just incredibly stupid.
yup deregulate the economy let the corporations maximize profit at everyone elses expense, take the power away from politicians and give it to big corporations. that way all of us are literal slaves and the government can't do anything about it. great plan bud.

But how do you have a government with a strong enough police and military force to keep companies from forming paramilitaries while at the same time making it impossible to bribe politicians to use aforementioned forces to intervene in the economy on their behalf.

>illiterate, obese hicks with M16's
>vs
>a military budget approximately as large as the next 23 combined, most of which are those of allies

Yeah no.

Well we have to know the purpose of corporations buying politicians. Companies aren't buying politicians so the government will use the military to its advantage, I think companies tend to buy politicians so those politicians will introduce favorable regulations. For example if I owned a really large cable company like Time Warner I might buy some politicians that promise to some introduce laws that make it impossible for smaller competition to operate.

I don't think there's a danger of companies buying the military to benefit their company so I see no reason to limit the governments power in that respect. I do however see companies buying politicians in regards to regulation and in that respect is where I want to limit the governments power.

Look up Smedley Butler for a start.

Because the act of existing is aggression against everything around you.

I think safety regulations actually make workers less safe. Companies are only interested in protecting themselves from liability, and under the current system they do that following these safety regulations as best they can. The problem is the government is often very slow to react to fluid situations. It's not uncommon for workers to engage in unsafe practices for months or years until OSHA finally comes around takes notice of it, and before that happens accidents do happen and people do unnecessarily get hurt. I believe safety regulations disincentive a proactive approach to safety. With government regulations, companies only need to to the bare minimum in order to protect themselves from being sued by injured workers.

In a world without any safety regulations, it would be up to a judge to decide on an individual case by case basis if a company did what was necessary to protect the workers. This would cause companies to go 'above and beyond' to protect their workers simply because nothing eats into profits faster than being sued.

im an an-cap but id say this is one of the only legitimate criticisms

by using resources now, you are increasing the scarcity that others will have to deal with in the future

those people's existences are irreversibly fucked by your existence, you're just lucky you were born first

>I think safety regulations actually make workers less safe.
Well you're wrong.

Why do you believe that?

t. urbanite

There is literally nothing wrong with violating the NAP

Well see about that when I launch a privately owned nuclear missile at you for trespassing.

It's a spook.
The individual doesn't benefit from blindly following it.

a real egoist would never recommend/imply that anyone else should be an egoist

Wrong.

Are there are any real objections to this?

I'm a hardcore libertarian and, imo, breaking up violent strikers is a legitimate use of state power

except that the mining companies were the original wrongdoers in the situation.
The government didn't respond, prompting the miners to take matters into their own hands. At which point money mysteriously found its way to Washington and all of a sudden there were federal troops in them hills.

>a real egoist
Sounds awfully spooky m8

Ah-bloo-bloo

Nothing, but thinking that people just will follow it in an ancap society is retarded. It's just as deluded as believing in communist utopias where everyone just gives up their personal interests for the grand ideology.

...

Requires a state to enforce therefore rendering it's point invalid. Furthermore, deprive even the most devout of NAP believers of bread and situate them next to a bakery and they will inevitably resort to thievery. Even the most basic of self-preservation resorts in the breaking of the NAP.

I don't know any libertarian who believes stealing when it's legitimately a matter of survival is a violation of the NAP.

But the store owner would still be in the right for shooting the thief?

If it's not a violation of the NAP then the owner wouldn't have the right to shoot him. Even if it was a violation I don't know if the owner would have the right to shoot him because it would be an inordinate response to simple theft.

Except many do. Theft is an act of aggression according to libertarians and it's called the 'non-aggression principle' not the 'non-aggression unless you're starving principle.' Don't think you quite understand the degree of sociopathy needed by right-libs.

There's a meme where people will purposefully misunderstand libertarian views and then take them to the extreme and it's pretty funny but I think you're taking the joke a little seriously, like you actually think that's what they believe.

How would the store owner know that the thief is starving? And what punishment is the appropriate one? Is there even a law of the land without government? I thought the magic solution of the NAP is that it regulates itself. If you violate another persons person or property, the he can retaliate however he seems fit against he violator.

>I don't know any libertarian who believes stealing when it's legitimately a matter of survival is a violation of the NAP.
all of them? it's a violation of property rights.

You say ancaps aren't real?

The proper response to theft is to call the police and let them sort it out. You're confusing a libertarian government with no government at all.

No, I'm saying the image you have of libertarians is not real. What you believe they are doesn't coincide with reality.

Is theft aggression through the right-libertarian NAP lens or not? By their philosophical standards, it is. And if you claim aggression is situationally allowed then you aren't really following the NAP, now are you?

Theft is, yes. But there can be exceptions in what are called hard cases, like a legitimately starving man with no other options. There is no law that be so rigidly applied as you're suggesting.

The same thing wrong with every principle: it's dogmatic. Every attempt to "prove" its validity deductively falls flat due to circularity.

But ancaps believe that, ancaps are real and ancaps are libertarians. So there are libertarians that believe it QED.

If you want to have an elected government with taxes (violate NAP) and laws that overrule the NAP, then why bring it up at all. Sounds like you only think of the NAP as a nice but insufficient concept, just like we already do in our non-libertarian governments.

He said ancaps.
Libertarians don't actually make any sense by their own game. There's no reason for them to stop peeling back government duties until there is no government anymore. Hence the common saying the difference between a libertarian and an ancap is six months. Ancaps run into their own very serious difficulties but libertarianism is literally just picking a point and saying 'government can stop here but not here' without having a reason.

Also the NAP cannot function as a moral principle but only as a legal one so there can be many issues.

The government has legitimate roles in many things like keeping people from hurting each other or arbitrating disputes and taxes for those purposes are not a violation of the NAP. I wonder if you assume that libertarians want the NAP to be the only law of the land? If so you're mistaken. It's better to think of it as an ideal.

The goal of a libertarian is to have minimal government. They're not just arbitrarily picking and choosing what the government does, it essentially comes down this question: Can the private market do this better? If not, it's the governments job.

I agree with you that the NAP is not moral principle.

Taxing people against their will is a violation of the NAP. You are taking away their money against their will and you violate them further on non-compliance.

I am not sure what kind of weird definition of the NAP you are using, please define it for me.