Ha ha ha. Really, you can do better than that. Or again, may be you cannot.
well if you want to judge morality based on insurance costs, we can call that Juan’s thing. we’ll make you a wikipage in political philosophies, we call it insurancism. the cheaper it is the righter you are !
So, you stick to the very principle the PDAs are supposed to defend, non-aggression. And still the PDAs virtually refuse to do business with you. Pray, you enlightened nirgrahamUK, why would such a thing happen ?
juan, what are you even critiquing anymore?
i havent been refused service by any PDA
Indeed. Your trying to make fun of it shows you really don’t “get it”.
So what. Please answer my question ? X fully supports the NIAP and yet the PDAs treat X as if X were virtually a criminal ? How so ?
thats a good question. an even better question is do you know the difference between being a criminal, and being treated as virtually a criminal?
Never mind. Stop quibbling. Explain why X, who fully supports the NIAP, can’t get the PDAs to do business with him, unless he pays a lot. And even then he may be denied service.
because life isnt fair. because people dont have positive obligations to provide insurance and protection services to people if they dont want to. and on and on, its almost like you know less about libertarianism than you did when we started
sheeeeesh
Looks like I gave Juan a new argument, imagine that.
Stop lying. Your answers are beyond silly
The point is, and you know it, that criminals don’t respect the NAP. That’s why PDAs wouldn’t be too eager to do business with them. But we have poor X who is a true believer in the NAP (according to you…) and still he finds himself ostracized as if he were a…what ? An ordinary murderer ? Weird.
You know what ? There seem to be an objective way to ascertain what is and what is not real self-defense. And since doing that is possible, PDAs will do it. And the reason why X has higher costs is because he’s not really engaging in self-defense, but is an aggressor.
I’m curious, if person A says to person B, jokingly, “if you do X, you’re so dead”, can person B put a bullet in A’s brain?
In that case, thank you =]
LOL. On TWO accounts. First I laughed at NUK’s comment (knowing less than when you started) and secondly at Juan’s response.
Specifically in what I quoted of NUK’s, what’s a lie? Life isn’t fair. In a free society, I don’t HAVE to serve you candy if I don’t want to. Beautiful, isn’t it?
I think you’re missing Juan’s point to be honest.
Oh man, my sides are splitting from laughter.
Juan has been making it up as he goes for a long time. It’s all his preferences, and a society that follows libertarian values without conflict, which is why his ever mentioning PDAs is laughable. Juan believes that a “libertarian society” will include stepford people who follow the NAP without question or conflict. It’s as utopian as it is naive.
See my last post. I’ve butted heads with Juan on this many times. He really believes that conflict won’t arise, can’t arise because a libertarian society, always follows the NAP.
Also, in a free society, people won’t serve people they don’t like. They will fire warning shot at strangers standing in their yard. They will release their dogs to play on their property, if there is a stranger in the back yard, and they will not call the dogs off if they attack a trespasser.
As it should be. The trespasser, doesn’t place a positive obligation on the property owner by aggressing against him. To believe otherwise, is uncivilized.
Yes, I should have worded that one better. But I didn’t feel like editing it. What I mean is that NUK’s ‘answers’ answer nothing. He knows that if he gives an honest answer he will undermine his point so he ‘lies’. Technically it’s not a lie. It’s evasion…or something.
Yeah. Who said otherwise ?
Liberty Student, a lot of your posts offer me an annoying choice. Do I waste time replying to your ridiculous misrepresentations or not ? In this case I will :
To respect the right to life of a trespasser is NOT a positive obligation. Now, go back to square one.