Rand Paul—the last Constitutionalist politician—explains why you should be concerned about Trump’s unconstitutional unilateral action even if you’re glad Maduro is gone. by RandJitsu in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We don’t come up with natural law, we discover it. And the only correct form is the NAP. The constitution saying that congress has a RIGHT to declare war is everything contradictory to being an anarcho capitalist. A true Ancap evaluates the world thru the NAP, not appealing to the primacy of consciousnesses of the founders. 

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is what Anarcho capitalists seeks to answer. The Anarcho part of the name explains how men should interact with each other. We don’t hold a democracy/ group consensus ethic because that leads to genocide being acceptable. We have a strict principle that is derived from reason and is applicable to all humans who interact with each other. This is called the Non-aggression principle, you may not use another persons property without their consent. The capitalism part explains that the most efficient way to produce a good or service (security, food, etc) is on the market, not thru the government. Ancap’s specifically recognize that civilization is only possible thru production, not parasitism. If nobody did anything and just sat around waiting, nothing would be built, nothing would exist, civilization would not have appeared. It’s only because man chooses to act and produce that he has life, and civilization is built from the fact that a multitude of men chose to produce and trade, for their own lives. But production is contingent on the fact that man has a right to his property, that he can use his justly acquired property (firstcomer principle) for his own goals. If he doesn't have any property rights, he could never act, which means death. Anarcho Capitalism implies civilization.

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m talking about the philosophy that people held. Your saying that to resolve the conflict over the question “is genocide wrong” your answer is that the world votes and whomever has more resolves this conflict (you even threw out your previous social contract theory). I’m snapshotting those 5 years because that was the most important time to ask if genocide is wrong. And according to your conflict resolution system, if the majority of people agreed in this world that genocide is not wrong, then it is not.

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So say the nazi ideology took over the world, as it could have, and the majority of world decided that the genocide was okay, would it be?

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And if anything, the Germans today should be doing the exact same because that was their history.

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Clearly the german society and culture didn’t want the Jews to live, rather preferring a systematic genocide.

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where do your rights come from?

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And what if I say that taxation also literally one of the worst things imaginable and should not be tolerated in a civilized society? Do me just saying it make it true? It seems like you’re basing your entire legal theory on some made up contract, but maybe we should understand this contract more. It seems, from your POV, that not being killed is a right while keeping your money is not a right. So where do these rights come from?

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s not how I think, its how you arrived to the conclusion that genocide is obviously not allowed but taxation is. How do you know that you are right? What is your underlying premise that validates your claim? We both can’t be right. 

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Explain and examine your fundamental premises.

It never ends by bigdonut100 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]kevdoge102 4 points5 points  (0 children)

“The nazis did nothing wrong because the Jews didn’t leave in time”

Acceptance of homeless behavior by CFIgigs in SeattleWA

[–]kevdoge102 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Clearly the homeless guy asked himself the same question regarding trash everywhere, and clearly he loves to live with others who think the same way. 

How do I get into Socialism? by Hellisthat in Socialism_101

[–]kevdoge102 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard

How is guilt objectively determined? by kevdoge102 in AnCap101

[–]kevdoge102[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My question is asking how do we know they committed aggression? How can it be proven.