"Especially critical of those that hold to the NAP(non aggression principle), which is political and sociological nonsense."
https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325542149894394/
This is not an argument, so let me provide the argument. The first issue with aggression is that traitors will lie. They will tell you that you are the aggressor, or they will tell you it's not aggression, they're doing it [for your own good]. Hence you need a higher power to define aggression and definitively determine the traitor is the liar. A higher power or pope is certainly not classic anarcho-capitalism. They take a corporeal god for granted.
The other solution solving the non-aggression pact is a well-written contract defining aggression in advance. Then revenge is sour and personnel is policy. When two verbally deft adults can come together and agree like that, they're cooperators, not traitors. Nobody was going to try to solve disputes with defection in the first place.
As a distant second, it deprecates aggression, which is feminine in the worst way. Which is why I call it treachery instead. This also highlights the fact you shouldn't need to define it. Not exactly rocket science. Nobody should have to come together and write up an anti-treachery pact...and yet, here we are. This is homo sapiens. Have you met one before?
"but the state is what defines property."
(don't let the state define property - yes it does, but only for slaves and peasants)
"You say some bit of land or a building or a resource belongs to you, what exactly makes that so? The social framework that established property, that defines and protects your rights."
https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325544724877611/
Incorrect. Yes, that is classic ancap, and that's why I'm a meta-rothbardian. What defines property is security. The capacity for defensive violence.
"an outsider doesn't care about your internal rules and customs." Or, more importantly, a traitor doesn't care, unless he actively enjoys transgression. Which is why you need a gun or a mercenary. Always build a fence, either abstractly or very literally.
"Point is you don't get an individualist and anarchist basis for property rights."
https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325547157532950
Whoopsie doodle! Conquest's first law: try to stay in your lane and not talk shit you don't know anything about!
"And that means force is what keeps your property from being taken."
[...]
"Aggression claimed the property in the first place."
https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867326829947695531
When I pick up a rock and it becomes mine, it's aggression. Violence! Crime! I stole that rock! (From the earth or something?)
Proudhon, is that you?
"In a way the leftists are honest in connecting property and theft."
Oh hey, it is.
"You occupied the place, declared it yours, meaning aggression toward anyone else that may want it."
Here, a heathen delights in using Satan's language.
Bro, ask Odin about what you just said...
(It's funny because I'm dead serious.)
The point is if they try to take your property, they are the aggressor and you're not, regardless of what you do to them to make them stop. If you deliberately misunderstand this point, you're hallucinating. Arguing against a phantasm conjured into a fever dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment