For something to be a crime, you must violate another’s rights either negligently or with intent. If an exploding transformer blows me onto your lawn, I have not tresspassed because it was not my action which caused me to be on your lawn. Likewise, if I have your meatball because you put it in my hand, I have not stolen it. You stole from yourself, as it were, by assuming I’d know about and agree to your nonsensical “implied” contract. If there is any theft here, it comes from your negligence, not mine.
I don’t see why you object to conservatism when advocated by Giles and others while at the same time subscribing to the same views ? Hint : people at 14 can do whatever they please. Conservatives and their ‘local customs’ please go…somewhere else.
Oh, and I suppose that ‘local custom’ is OK when forced upon the local dissidents because, well, they can either love it or leave it ?
LOL? “Dissidents”? What about the unborn dissidents then? They can love it or leave it too, no?
I wouldnt be so quick to discount pluralism of local custom if I were you. Its the only thing that makes stateless society possible without the requirement to first eradicate all interpretations of natural law and to brainwash people on a massive scale. Dicount it and we first have to resolve all sorts of issues where we now disagree before we can dismantle the state.
Stateless society without pluralism is another name for perpetual war.
Yes, dissidents. People born in nation X who don’t care for the customs of some other people who happen to live in nation X.
Your usage of the word pluralism strikes me as odd. To me pluralism entails not lynching people who don’t respect arbitrary local custom. Local customs and nationalism do not, at all, trump natural law…If you want to stay within the bounds of libertarianism, that is.
So, if I happen to violate your local customs without violating the NAP, then you have zero recourse against me. Pluralism means that you realize that’s the case and don’t make a fuss.
I disagree. People respecting natural rights is not the same thing as people abiding by revealed socialist law, or revealed nationalist law, or revealed theocratic law, or any other form of coercive or even ‘voluntary’ collectivism. The idea that respect for individual rights requires brainwashing is…a bit orwellian.
You are playing dumb and putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about violating customs without violating NAP. I said there are bound to be different interpretations (of which only mine is correct BTW) of what constitutes agreession and what is implied by NAP.
It is something which has not been resolved on a tiny internet forum so it is a little delusional to think it would be resolved in a statelss society spanning billions of people.
Sex with a 14 year old is aggression in my book as is abortion, but is not neccesarily in yours. Of course I am convinved you are an utter fool for thinking so and that you would be a criminal if you were to do it, but that doesn`t change the practical facts. Which are that making you abide by the correct understanding of non-agression in your own community would require a war and generaly little good comes from war.
But if you insist on only one interpretation then there is going to be a war and we are going to win it. And then there will be no more abortions or humping 14 year olds for the likes of you in any locale, so you better not poke into the hornet`s nest.
Pluralism is the only reason why we wouldn`t stuff you all on a prison boat. And set it on fire.
Marko, you’re a gangster. Go drink beer with your nationalist buddies.
And, again, you’ve no leg to stand on when complaining about Giles’ feudalism. You advocate the same thing. Actually what you advocate is even worse because Giles and co. at least pretend that there will be some sort of explicit contract setting arbitrary conservatism as the law of the land. In your case arbitrary custom is an implicit contract that the lynching mob enforces at will.
Learn to mind your own business and then try to play the libertarian game. Today you fail. Miserably.
No I am worse because Giles is a conservative and as such is always on the defensive. You`re only used with dealing with folks always on the retreat before ethical decadence.
Learn to keep your fingers of my daughter. Or you will lose them.
But there is only one correct interpretation! All your bluster will not change what it is, nor will your war, even if you win. And, an age of 14 used to be a fairly common age to get married. A 14-year-old is a biological adult, most of the time. You need a better justification than chronological time to justify treating having sex with a 14-year-old as aggression.
Moral relativism is truly a disgusting doctrine, as your little rant here shows. It doesn’t increase tolerance as it is often sold, but rather gives free rein to local bigotry and aggression. You are no libertarian, who thinks that aggression is solely relative to the local culture.
Wow. That is awesome. You are completely bugnuts.
Tell me, if the majority of people in a country support the governement’s actions, does that mean its actions are no longer aggression? How large a group defines aggression? In how large an area? You poo-pooed dissidents, before, so clearly you think majority rules. Sounds to me like you’re a believer in nationalist democracy, not anarchy.
With the consent of the parents.
You are a sniveling child. I bet you sleep under the picture of Abraham Lincoln. Come back when you have at all made an attempt to comprehend my position, instead of making yourself look a knee jerk. Moral relativism my arse.
Next time when you ask for a clarification refrain from putting words into my mouth as you do it and perhaps I will oblige.
**
Why? The parents don’t own their offspring. You need the 14-year-old’s consent, not the parents. You are just puritanical because you have a daughter and you don’t like the fact that guys are gonna wanna plow her.
How is it not moral relativism to say that the NAP is only valid as interpreted by local custom?
I did not say that. You put that into my mouth.
There is only one NAP. And there is only one valid interpretation. = Moral Absolutism. I could not agree more with this.
But I find my interpretation to be that one which is only valid just as you find your own interpretation to be that one which is only valid.
I do not feel less intentely about my understanding. I just recognise the fact that people who disagree with me do not feel less intentely about theirs either.
No, you need consents of both.
Actually I dont. Its a rhetorical device.
Why?
Because a 14 year old is fit to manage himself to some degree, but is not jet fit to make a decision of this sort solely on his own.
That was the position of most societies through most of the history and it was actually you who brought up historical precedant so don`t blame me.
BTW, I didnt poo-poo dissidents. I was being amused by Juans hypocrisy and double standards. He cares deeply about “dissidents” in ethical communities, but is ever silent on “dissidents” (and worse victims from my point of view) in decadent communities. In fact he fails to acknowledge there even can be such a phenomenon.
I cannot blame you for the origins, but I can for your subscription to that view. I should also point out that it was the position of most societies that women were inferior and sort of semi-property at least, and that moderate beatings of your wife were expected and healthy. Just because a view is old doesn’t mean it’s worth a hill of beans. We have to look at each one and see if it’s justifiable through a logical approach to ethics.
If I am in a club, and a woman looks like a woman, all secondary sex characteristics definitely in place, then she is a woman, and I am not obligated to check her ID for whether she’s of whatever arbitrary age you set for adulthood before we get bizaaaah! Ages are just numbers, man. I’ve not yet come up with a reason why the NAP should not apply just as much to children as anyone else. Not everyone was hit as a kid, and not all the people who weren’t turned out to be useless. You don’t own your kids, so you have no power over what agreements I make with them. You have only the economic consequences you can rightfully impose on your kids.
Marko, you haven’t got a clue.
“ethical communities” ? Such as ?
“decadent communities” ? For instance ?
Yeah, don’t you get the impression that for Marko, “ethical communities” are those which accept the use of force against those who are “decadent” in their behavior, even if they aggress against nobody, and “decadent communities” are those that gasp don’t try to hurt people for pleasure-seeking?
Yes – he says he’s not a moral relativist, but it seems that for him the NAP can be anything, depending on how the locals happen to interpret it. He probably thinks that this :
is libertarianism at work…
I’m sorry, but who the fuck are you to make this sort of statement.
I hereby declare, from my position as supreme overlord of you lesser beings, that you, a year-old, are fit to manage yourself to some degree, but are not yet fit to make a decision of this sort soley on your own. So, from now on, I have arbitrarily decided that you are not allowed to have sex, nor partake in certain substances which I have again, arbitrarily decided. Furthermore, if you “get out of line” I hold the power to ration out beatings at my arbitrary discretion. You, obviously, have no recourse because I am your master and you are my slave.
You’re some kind of anarchist.