Socialists, commies, anarchists, nazis, libertarians, and.other not mentioned Let us unite and talk about how we wont vote for Democrats and Republicans anymore! -yuri
No. The point to which it pertains is completely unambiguous, particularly when you read the OP. If you didn't work out that the purpose of the thread is to invite criticism of the two party paradigm, then that's your problem.
Im with ya yuri, im sure you know this. Idk if i prefer libertarian or anarchy, i suppose the republic the constitution lays out would be good too.
Anyone who makes it to president is fully indoctrinated in neo-conservative ideology. The game is rigged. Didn't believe it until Obama turned into George Bush the day after inauguration.
meh. I'm willing to compromise Hell I'd even welcome a Communist president over our current bullshit. At least something.interesting would happen Seriously though. Evolution is a slow process. To achieve anarchy we must slowly change the minds of the people and leaders. It must start with libertatianism -yuri I actually wondered if ron Paul would have ended up a disappointment -yuri
I could go libertarian for the time being. I have, in fact, promoted and voted for them. Its a start. It pisses me off that in order to vote, we have to vote in their rigged bullshit system. And if Ron Paul would have won a revolution would have occurred OR he would have disappointed us by being stonewalled.
Yuri, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on how Voluntaryism can possibly violate NAP; I didn't want to start a separate discussion in crazy dude's thread. In order for an interaction to remain voluntary force or coercion cannot be used. As soon as the initiation or threat of violence or force is present the interaction is no longer voluntary, and therefore violates Voluntaryism and NAP simultaneously.
Nap stands for the non aggression principle. Things like predatory banking and buisnes practices are examples of.voluntary transactions that pprey on peoples ignorance causing them an.unfavorable.outcome. That's aggression. Another example is addictive drugs. A drug dealer plays on the addicts weak will. Doing drugs is 100% voluntary. But most junkies wish they could quit. If they knew then what they know now they would never have started. I realize The iimplications.of this belief. Shouldn't drug dealers be free to sell.drugs? Of coarse. But I also have a strong belief in non.interventionism. If my Neighbor killed his brother, yea murder is wrong, but if I get involved to bring.justice, I can make things worse I made threads on these issues if.you are interested We could talk about specific examples all day, but the concept is the same. If.you trick someone. If you scam.someone. if you prey on their weakness (entrapment) then.you have violeted nap.in a technically voluntary situation -yuri
I know what NAP stands for. It is your own responsibility to pull yourself out of ignorance. If somebody's ignorance leads to unfavorable outcomes only they are to blame. Who enforces keeping 'predatory' business practices out of the market? How do you stop a voluntary interaction that you perceive to be 'predatory' in nature from occurring without violating NAP? Do you not believe the free market would remedy the problem, without the need for intervention, by allowing better alternatives to emerge? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like your belief violates NAP.
I agree My.point still stands Ill keep that in mind when he entire us is enslaved by bankers Individuals You don't which is why I brought up nonintervention Its just like.I believe abortion is murder, but I'm not about to put women on trial for it. I do You are wrong. My belief is that nap and voluntarisn are mutually exclusive, but as a noninterventionist I don't believe in using force to stop.voluntary transactions. I believe in education over legislation By informing people of aggressive practices, they can make informed voluntary decissions -yuri
I think you're confusing persuasion with aggression. You can persuade somebody to make choices that may be perceived as detrimental to them, but because the choice is completely theirs to make and nobody is forcing anything upon them, they haven't committed an act of aggression. NAP hasn't been violated. However, you agree that persuasion, the Voluntaryist solution, is the remedy to predatory business practices here.
well semanitcs aside, I think our solution and how society should be run are very similar so this debate is kinda worthless no? -yuri
OK, well then I think you got my.idea backwards I didn't say volunteerism and nap aare contradictory, I meant to say they are mutually exsclusive, and as a such I prioritise nap over volunteerism If that mmakes more sense -yuri
It does. I was under the impression you thought they were contradictory before when you said "I find volunteerism unacceptable if you are an anarchist who subscribes to nap" in the other thread. Sent from my iPad using Grasscity Forum