• johker216@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Both are necessary, there’s an argument to strengthen the latter, and neither violate the NAP. I’m not one of those crazy ones 😁

    • Rottcodd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      violate the NAP

      not one of those crazy ones

      These two statements contradict each other.

      The NAP is a substitute for laws for “libertarians” who can’t tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.

      The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others. So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it’s a violation of the NAP, so you’re now entirely justified in shooting them.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. It only seems that way because most of us have only had experiences with the psychotic capitalist neo-libertarians of the Murray Rothbard school.

        Actual libertarians, left libertarians. Can definitely get pretty squirrely when you get out on the fringes of ideologic anarchists etc. But many are fairly rational and even generally pro social democracy.

        Right-wing libertarians are just an oxymoron. Under capitalism none of us can truly be free and we are all subject to the whims of wealth hoarding psychotic oligarch monkeys. They’ll tell you that you’re free not to work for them. The only problem is choosing not to work for them means choosing starvation, homelessness, and death. Which isn’t the sort of thing that should be considered a choice in any civil society. But absolute necessities for unsustainable systems such as capitalism.