Yes, I don't see a better solution than government that can be expected to be stable. What I usually hear as suggestions are unstable systems that could only work if everybody participating agreed not to abuse them. But this is standard for utopias. Communism would work perfectly if everybody agreed with it and was willing to participate.
if everybody participating agreed not to abuse them.
No it's not an agreement where everybody needs to agree. It's the absence of the "agreement" that violence can be justified in the name of government or anything else mafia slavery.
It's also not a constitution, or other paper.
But you can believe of course what you want you can advocate for a violence. I just don't believe that they, or you, or I, can legitimately use of violence, to get someone to do what you want or what you want me to pay for..... that's all.
I think you are advocating for a situation where anybody would be able to use violence against anybody unchecked. Saying I'm advocating for things I'm not is just twisting my words or inventing things that I'm not saying.
What I'm saying is that you are advocating for an utopia. Sure, an utopia can sound great when you imagine it as a perfect little world, the thing is you just can't really propose a mechanism that would keep that world better even than the imperfect world we live in. I just don't want to advocate for solutions that I don't think could ever be successfully implemented in practice with satisfactory results.
Thanks for the reply :)
Yeah, it took me only 18 days :/ Still I got to it eventually.
I think we've gotten to a point where we understand each other's position, but we simply disagree. I'm well aware of the NAP but for a society to be founded on it, everybody should be practicing it or it breaks down. Just like communism.
There would still be real criminals that need to be dealt with.
And how do you do that armed with just the NAP? That's what I don't get that's where I think it all breaks down and becomes unsustainable.
The difference with communism is it's not a system that uses violence to force everybody to be a certain way. It's just knowing that you may/must defend yourself (or ask someone else) whenever you are attacked of threatend of stolen form. It's very basic. And let say there comes a murderer in my house, It's not necccesary for me to explain to the murderer the NAP, or that we have to agree on the non aggression principle, for me to do something against that attacker. I just practice it in reality. I try to stop the attacker (with deadly force if neccesary. I even think the murderer is, although he does not know the word, familiar with that NAP and the consequences in reality
And how do you do that armed with just the NAP? That's what I don't get that's where I think it all breaks down and becomes unsustainable.
So it's not the NAP that defends me against criminals. (also the ones in costumes) It's me literally or someone else that does is for me.
Of course it would be easier if more people understood the NAP. Which most do in a sense, except for the giant exception they make for government employees as if they are not normal human beings that ought to be bound by the same "rule", when the commit aggression theft and murder.
I have another question for you regarding your previous reply.
What do you personally believe/advocate should be done to me personally if I don't pay the demanded tribute, via taxes, to the political ruling class or don't obey their commands. Please be literal and specific.
Yes, I don't see a better solution than government that can be expected to be stable. What I usually hear as suggestions are unstable systems that could only work if everybody participating agreed not to abuse them. But this is standard for utopias. Communism would work perfectly if everybody agreed with it and was willing to participate.
No it's not an agreement where everybody needs to agree. It's the absence of the "agreement" that violence can be justified in the name of government or anything else mafia slavery.
It's also not a constitution, or other paper.
But you can believe of course what you want you can advocate for a violence. I just don't believe that they, or you, or I, can legitimately use of violence, to get someone to do what you want or what you want me to pay for..... that's all.
Thanks for the reply :)
I think you are advocating for a situation where anybody would be able to use violence against anybody unchecked. Saying I'm advocating for things I'm not is just twisting my words or inventing things that I'm not saying.
What I'm saying is that you are advocating for an utopia. Sure, an utopia can sound great when you imagine it as a perfect little world, the thing is you just can't really propose a mechanism that would keep that world better even than the imperfect world we live in. I just don't want to advocate for solutions that I don't think could ever be successfully implemented in practice with satisfactory results.
Yeah, it took me only 18 days :/ Still I got to it eventually.
No. Looking at the replies under this post ;) I think by now you know the NAP
Also no.
There would still be real criminals that need to be dealt with.
Well it would be a big improvement if some people in costume stopped doing immoral acts.
Don't worry sometimes I reply on very old posts too.
I think we've gotten to a point where we understand each other's position, but we simply disagree. I'm well aware of the NAP but for a society to be founded on it, everybody should be practicing it or it breaks down. Just like communism.
And how do you do that armed with just the NAP? That's what I don't get that's where I think it all breaks down and becomes unsustainable.
I think you not quite understand it jet
The difference with communism is it's not a system that uses violence to force everybody to be a certain way. It's just knowing that you may/must defend yourself (or ask someone else) whenever you are attacked of threatend of stolen form. It's very basic. And let say there comes a murderer in my house, It's not necccesary for me to explain to the murderer the NAP, or that we have to agree on the non aggression principle, for me to do something against that attacker. I just practice it in reality. I try to stop the attacker (with deadly force if neccesary. I even think the murderer is, although he does not know the word, familiar with that NAP and the consequences in reality
So it's not the NAP that defends me against criminals. (also the ones in costumes) It's me literally or someone else that does is for me.
Of course it would be easier if more people understood the NAP. Which most do in a sense, except for the giant exception they make for government employees as if they are not normal human beings that ought to be bound by the same "rule", when the commit aggression theft and murder.
I have another question for you regarding your previous reply.
What do you personally believe/advocate should be done to me personally if I don't pay the demanded tribute, via taxes, to the political ruling class or don't obey their commands. Please be literal and specific.