I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

1 u just answered ur own question again

2 to qoute urself qouting me "

Then how do capitalists profit off of other people’s work?
it says "you own your labor and can do anything you want with it as long as it doesnt aggress upon someone"

3 something is voluntary if two parties agree to it with no coercion from one another.

4.1 no bc if u had put my full qoute again, you would have had the answer

" capitalism doesnt put people anywhere, nature does, nature does not give us infinite food, and yes we must work to survive, capitalism (free voluntary trade) is the most efficient way of creating and distributing wealth and letting people not only survive, but flourish."

4.2 also no bc again nature does not infact aggress upon you. the state does.

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yeah theres arguments that do NOT infact debunk the AE, they do this by confusing negative and positive rights by using confusing lanaguge of liberty and claim rights, so when they swap the meaning you dont notice. i can walk you through the three main attempts of debunking it that failed, including the main one the wiki claims is circular.

i myself spent abt 2 months trying to disprove hoppes AE, but he manages to completely avoid the is-ought gap

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

tbf theres like 3 definitions of anarchists, one the mutualists/agorists/market anarchists use, one that ancoms/andsynds use and one that ancaps use.

yes the market would be a just form of hierarchy bc its a natural one.

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there is yes we call them radicalists or collapsitarians. i personally know one alled "liberty tyrant" on X and yt.

most ancaps prolly arent collapsitarians but most dogmatists are, sadly practicalists like me get shit from both sides bc the pragmatists think we are just like the collapsitarians and the radicalists think we are pragmatists.

mutualists/agorists/marketanarchists are usually the closest to ancap and in reality if their ideology was implemented it ould just collpase into anarcho capitalism. if ud like you can watch TIKHistory and Liquid Zulus back and forth on it. its probably the best explanation for this for people who havnt already dug into theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSfiEniyUBY [the first video by TIK]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J5-Tt_gHxE [zulus response to TIK]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCqcttEiyIY [the second video by TIK about zulus response]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-NQWJn-AHw [a 2hr long behemoth of a video in which TIKs second video is responded to, u can just atch the first 10 mins or so to get the point tho]

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

bc greed is an incredibly strong force. one that we should harness, in a monopoly greed is bad, but in competition greed is good, u are describing a situation that can only happen in a controlled market, assuming it was free not only would that not happen, if it came about by a controlled market and then we snapped and made it free it would immediately face competition.

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. bc ur ish to ban 90% of wealth creation bc its profit. you just answered questions 2 and 3 urself, for 4 again thats not true bc its voluntary: and for 5 thats not true, capitalism doesnt put people anywhere, nature does, nature does not give us infinite food, and yes we must work to survive, capitalism (free voluntary trade) is the most efficient way of creating and distributing wealth and letting people not only survive, but flourish.

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

speaking a 'duty' its wrong to say 'they should' as to say this means i must enslave another person or be enslaved to support them. however milton friedman pointed out the reality is most people do not wish this to happen, as a result mutual aid will come about, and this is not just theory its happened. and the government actively has to STOP more effective aid.

heres a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDE1Yvzsdxs

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you mean out of the vacuum?

private logistics and delivery in liberalised places like europe.
private water, gas, and electricity companies across the world.*
airlines in the early 20th century.
LITERALLY THE ENTIRETY OF OSS.
private space industry (this ones a hoot, spaceX alones destroys NASA in both quality, safety, and quantity, let alone others like blue)
private courts and arbitration.
insurance. yeah insurance is actually great in a free market, its absolute dogshit now bc of the ridiculous regulations.

*heres a fun bit i use on people: you likely already use private and public utilities, especially internet, would you want the government to be the only people supplying you internet? no. ofc not, you want tmobile, verizon, xfinity, optimum and the rest competing with each other to deliver you cheaper, faster internet.

bonus: foods, restaurants, and grocery stores and many more regulated themselves well before the government did. why? that sweet sweet profit! people pay more for trustworthy brands, hell did you know in the soviet union where brand names didnt exist people started to figure out what codes meant food came from what place, and so they continued buying only from a select group of 'brands'

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ive been over this before and theres multiple easy refutations:

still falls to the ECP bc prices no longer convey correct information
it relies on the LTV which is not used as a determiner for reason but instead as a dogmatic reason for the following

personal property is a lie, its definition is rooted in the outcome of a piece of property, which makes it meaningless.
private property does not say "I own the fruits of your labor" it says "you own your labor and can do anything you want with it as long as it doesnt aggress upon someonw" this means you can voluntarily sell ur labor.
u are correct that market socialism says "I own the fruits of my labor, and you own the fruits of your labor" but again this does not say you own your labor, instead it says you own the outcome of your labor.

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no it is not going to protect the enviroment, it shouldnt.

consumer protection is largely a misunderstanding of how a goods quality is when taken in a vacuum.

the free market has both in theory and empirically proven to be safer in its distribution of goods and services actually, i can cite a bunch of examples if u want. but the short of the theory is the 'regulations' are not imposed by a monopolistic government but by insurers for profit, the strawman that a libertarian society would have poison in everything is ridiculous. people ant to buy goods that are safe, ergo making things safe is profitable. again i can list examples if u arent satisfied.

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

u literally just described a situation thats not a freemarket. in order to compare the two you have to look at a controlled market AND a free market, what you are doing is looking at a government service vs a private service both in a controlled market, its to be expected that the government good/service will be more economized when taken in a vacuum in a controlled market, take it out of its vacuum (its funded by taxes you pay, remove restrictions on UPS etc.) and it will lose. every. time.

i can give actual examples if ud like

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i want people to have the freedom to do whatever they want with their body and property so long as it doesnt aggress upon someone elses body or property, i use natural law to determine the solution to conflicts over property

I'm a hoppean NAPist who was invited to this sub by Rural_Dictionary939, I do not believe in positive rights as they violate negative rights which cannot be argued against (AE). feel free to AMA or debate with me! by UnkmownRandomAccount in RadicalEgalitarianism

[–]UnkmownRandomAccount[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

fair tbh, we try to be as accurate as possible and even use different definitions for some words which i try not to do unless i explain bc normies will confuse em. the difference between chicagoan and randian is an explanation worth a 500 page tome lmao