The early anarchists already tried assassinating heads of states. Didn’t work.
If I did that, what moral ground would I have to defend the Non-Agression Principle? If I were threatened with violence by a statist, or was involved in a war for my freedom, then self-defense would be completely justifiable. But I would never enact violence upon others just because their opinions (no matter how misled) were different than mine.
Liberty Student,
Well, I have to ask for you to act in good faith on this one. I am not being provacative for the sake of doing so. These are real intellectual questions that deserve real focus and contemplation. And to be addressed directly.
J. Wagner,
I’m not invoking the NAP. What I’m saying is quite different. I’m saying -
-
You cannot create a libertarian society so long as it is not composed of people who desire it
-
No society can be composed of people who desire freedom because people are inherently exploitative.
-
What matters is to find freedom for oneself, no matter what it takes. NAP be damned
Anarcho-capitalists are a tiny minority, and our enemies are the same people who nuked Hiroshima.
If you are relying on violence and force to beat them…
That’s exactly what libertarians are supposed to avoid ?
You’re new here. You immediately bring up violence as a libertarian resolution to conflict with the state.
I am acting in good faith to look out for LvMI and this forum. I don’t know you from a speedbump.
Not here. Go register a free blogspot blog, and talk about violence and suggestions of murder on Google’s dime. Better yet, take this discussion to the C4SS. The mutualists will love this idea. Just frame it as killing rich people.
Anyway, I wasn’t asking you what you thought. I was making clear this discussion doesn’t belong here, and you are driving it too hard, not to mention the post edit that I caught.
So move along. I won’t ask again.
ama gi,
It seems to me that morality is a little box they’ve got us nailed into and the only way to break out is with sheer force. Reason has a place, but it doesn’t seem to be here.
-
Yes you can. The people who do not desire it are free to form their own mutual-protection agencies or other government-substitutes that act as States do now, and we would be free to defend ourselves against them should they infringe on our liberties
-
Society is a group of individuals, so do not go saying what all of them want or do not want. Those who want liberty in a libertarian society will ahve it, and those who do not are free to surrender it
-
I believe that attaining freedom for oneself is important, but I am also concerned with making sure that freedom is available to all who desire it. If I were to enact violence, I would be creating a system as horrible and exploitive as the state, using violence to achieve dominion over others, and that is not freedom, it is the other end of oppression
Bryanedds,good-bye, and good riddence.
sigh