>ENTIRE ideology is based upon "lmao just don't bother anyone and stuff should be cool"
This... this is literally the most infantile and retarded concept in the entire realm of politics. How is there even a single living person that takes this seriously?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>OP
...
I'm sorry, do you need to hurt other people? Is your sense of entitlement causing you to take from the hard work of others instead of building a life for yourself?
I constantly ask AnCaps what happens when someone breaks the NAP.
Either they're completely unaware that crazy emotional people who don't give a flying fuck about principles exist, or they're completely unaware that crazy emotional people might still have people in their lives who will be consider recreational nuclear bombing their cousin a violation of the NAP themselves.
...
Fishe heh
No, I have no desire to hurt anyone. You probably don't either. But are you not aware of the crazy fucks, retards, niggers, etc out there? Conflict and violence have always been routine since the dawn of mankind to this very day. It's unpleasant and sucks, but your solution is just... "don't"? That's so fucking stupid I can't wrap my head around it. It's equivalent to a kindergarten teacher telling a circle of 5 year olds to be nice to each other on the playground.
Libertarianism is built on "I obtained my own property, don't try to take it and I won't try to take yours."
But if someone *does* try to take your property, you have the right to defend it.
So if someone wants to get all emotional and attack me, I can shoot them in self-defense.
If someone attacks my cousin and I consider it a personal offense, I can attack that person. Doesn't mean I'll win, they might kill me too.
The NAP says what people cannot do. The possibilities of what you CAN do are not prescribed. It's called freedom, and yes it is meaningless without context. Culture is king.
read It's not "oh they hurt me but I'll just not do anything about it :D everyone be nice!!!"
It's stay the fuck off my property and I can use self-defense, but I personally won' take what is not mine.
When you have a community of people who act like that, no one takes from each other because 1. they're moral enough not to and 2. they know they'll get shot if they try it
>Libertarianism is built on "I obtained my own property, don't try to take it and I won't try to take yours."
Wow, what a revolutionary concept. It's almost like what not even just humans but the most primitive of animals have operated under since life has existed on the planet.
It's not a solution to anything, it's basic fucking common sense. If there is not a powerful government entity to keep things in line then inevitably the most violent and intelligent people will wipe you out and control everything. There is a 0% chance every person on the planet is just suddenly going to play nice with each other.
Yeah I read it, it was retarded
Yeah the solution is "don't."
"Don't" because I don't want to waste my ammo and have a lawsuit, I'd rather we just all respect each other's humanity and capability to build and produce and work together.
I grew up the the country where people act like this- you provide for yourself and ask for your neighbors' help when you can't, and everyone helps each other because we all possess different skills.
You should know as an American that it's possible for entire regions of the country to get along on these principles, unless you spent your entire life in Skid Row or Baltimore or something.
>if you live in a utopia then everything is fine
How do you intend to create your perfect community of 100% moral people that all get along with each other and have no reason to be cutthroat or violent? How have movements with utopian intentions gone in the past?
>There is a 0% chance every person on the planet is just suddenly going to play nice with each other.
I'm not pretending everyone is going to play nice, that is what guns are for you retard
Then what is the point of your ideology? Every school of thought out there says defend yourself if you're attacked, why do you need a snake flag to express that?
It's not a 100%, that's what guns are for you retard.
You can agree as a community how to punish transgressors, it's not that hard.
If someone keeps stealing from you, the community can catch and punish the person, or you can warn them and shoot them next time they do it.
People can work together to stomp out the crime that will and does occur, doesn't mean you abandon your whole principle for one fuck-up
Who created modern anarcho-capitalism (and then tried to conflate it with libertarianism)?
(((David_D._Friedman)))
(((Friedrich Hayek)))
(((Ayn Rand)))
(((Murray Rothbard)))
(((Noam Chomsky)))
(((Ludwig von Mises)))
It is a thoroughly jewish system just like communism is, and it latched onto old libertarianism that predicated itself on examining rights and morality, not economics and money.
This is the big tell - if someone calls themselves a libertarian (ancaps fall into this category automatically) and they only talk about money and economics rather than morality or rights, they're part of the (((controlled))) branch of the ideology.
Jewish attacks on western civilization were two pronged:
1. Communism: Lower level revolution by the (((people))) for the (((people)))
2. Crony Capitalism/Anarcho-Capitalism/Libertarianism: Upper level sequestration of power by (((corporations))) and (((politicians)))
End result of either: Jewish control of society.
The second world war were BOTH facets (ALLIES) vs the anti-communist pact (AXIS). Together these two jew ideologies keep the western man locked into a prison, thinking he can escape (((communism))) with (((capitalism))) or (((capitalism))) with (((communism))); false dichotomy either way - which is why Germany took a third path, and that was achieved foremost by removing the parenthesis, and then using whatever parts of both socialist and capitalist ideologies worked given the timeframe.
The lesson of nazi germany isn't to become nazi, but to reject both (((capitalism))) AND (((communism))).
RareFlag
Because every other ideology seems to have some form of centralized government that ends up getting very corrupt.
Libertarian and anarchic communities rely more on individual abilities, and establish very very limited roles for centralized government, so that no one has direct power over a lot of stuff. You can have checks and balances on every person, or require everyone to help out in the community if they want to benefit from community items/services.
When everyone agrees on set principles respecting man's right to his own production and agreed rules on how to share things, you can correct for random people who try to take advantage of the system.
BUT this requires all members to be hard-working and moral, you can't have people being lazy, entitled, and basically what many people have been socially engineered into being today.
Well actually OP, pretty much every society is based off of this principle or something very similar to it. One of the express purposes of a society is to minimize conflict between individuals while fostering cooperative behavior to complete larger and more ambitious social project.
Libertarianism just strives to minimize or eliminate the authority of a state to break that principle. Had the government upheld the NAP then slavery would never have happened, we wouldn't have a population of impoverished blacks, the civil war may not have happened, and the industrial revolution would have begun earlier.
>The most violent and intelligent people.
You mean the constantly conniving, scheming, lying, weapon trafficking, child abusing, dictator funding, warmongering shitbags who are in charge of that powerful government entity whose cock you've affixed yourself to?
That's literally the principle that gangs try to keep the peace between each other with, and it's so well known how great gangs are at keeping the principle.
With exactly what part of libertarianism do you have a problem?
>agreed rules on how to share things
Should mention this includes companies. In a libertarian or ancap community, you can still work for a person and their company has rights to your production done for the company. However, they are required to fairly compensate you, or you can get a lawyer to force them to uphold their contract, quit and go somewhere else, work to convince the company to change through protesting and tanking their PR, etc.
It's just that the government doesn't get involved in personal arguments like this.
Gangs are pretty much automatically made up of dishonest, lazy people, who screw each other over and literally make people kill others to be in the gang in the first place, so I wouldn't expect them to be a shining example of a civilized libertarian society
What exactly differentiates your stock standard statist government from a gang of roving niggers? Is it just size? Is it that your average government worker might have ten IQ points on your average thug? Is it that one is more complex than the other? It certainly isn't their behavior, protection racketeering is how a statist government gets most of it's funding. Is it just that they behave a bit more civilized, or at the very least they're better at pretending to be more civilized?
What of substance separates government from gangster?
>You mean the constantly conniving, scheming, lying, weapon trafficking, child abusing, dictator funding, warmongering shitbags who are in charge of that powerful government entity whose cock you've affixed yourself to?
Yes, those are the people I mean. They will always control everything whether you like it or not. Do you want a wild west society where they can do whatever the fuck they want and kill you at the drop of a hat, or a controlled government environment open to public scrutiny if they get too out of control?
You guys don't know the fire you're playing with asking for little or no government. It won't work. Especially in America. Just ponder for 5 seconds the absolute chaos that would ensue in areas that have huge poor black populations and what they would do if there was nothing stopping them from storming your property and taking it, along with the raping of your women and your head being caved in.
The natural order you're advocating is not natural, the actual natural order of people is violence, slaughter and chaos. You want to live in a fantasy world. You don't.
>ENTIRE ideology is based upon "lmao just don't bother anyone and stuff should be cool"
Pretty much this.
Another way to write it:
>The regulations that stop multinational corporations from exploiting me are oppressive!
Ancaps are usually basing the convictions to their ideology on the corrupt and dysfunctional aspects of state / government.
In a fantastic display of idiocy, they seem to think think -with no sense of irony what so ever, that completely de-regulating the financial interests and corps that corrupted the state and government in the first place will somehow fix said problems.
You couldn't make this shit up.
Ancaps are literally the flat earthers of all political ideologies
A fucking tree.
Libertarianism seems like a precursor to segmented communities with their own laws, customs and people. Are there even any libertarian countries?
Obviously it wouldn't be an immediate thing.
You can't go from having a government-fed lazy population to suddenly letting them all off the leash and expecting everyone to get along.
It has to be a gradual introduction to a society where people are not give welfare, they *must* work and provide for their own families. You can still have charity, but it will be given by individuals and not by the state. People can defend their property and community members defend each other from criminals.
This is what USED to be America, but then we had the Federal Government decide that they needed to be in charge of everything and the people did not take the steps they needed to, to stop welfare and stop the implementation of central banks and all this shit. They were too trusting and didn't realize people wanted to use them to gain power.
Now we're more aware and know what can be done to our society if we let these type of people stay in power. So we need some kind of revolution, a wave of awakening and anger and political action (or physical fight if it gets to that point).
So we can only have this type of society widespread among Americans if a lot more of them wake up to the social engineer's progressive viruses. Not saying it will happen, but in theory it could and I hope it does.
O say can you shart, by the local walmart™,
What so proudly we mixed at the white mans last gleaming,
Whose broad fat and dark eyes flap through the perilous fight,
O'er the garbage we watched, were so gallantly sharting?
And the skins' black glare, the burgers bursting in air,
Gave proofs through the mutts that our genes were still there;
O say does that shit-spangled banner yet screech
O'er the land of the gay and the home of the jew?
>Implying high government officials can't just kill people and get away with it.
Jesus you really are fucking deluded, or just incredibly naive. In case it slipped your mind these well-masked criminals have significant influence in everything from your utilities to the laws which you have to follow but which they break with impunity. The thing that stops niggers from stealing my property is a gun, and if government cocksuckers weren't so incredibly fucking numerous we'd have a lot of better guns to better defend our property because god knows the cops don't. They just get there to scrape what's left of you off the floor.
If you and your like hadn't been so successful at worshiping authoritarians we'd have better means of self defense, but you'd rather they just paint over violent reality while taking away what few protections you've got left. People are naturally violent, entropy always increases, and the government actively perpetuates the kind of people who will slaughter you by feeding them welfare and subsidizing their bad behavior while chronically failing to address the problem.
Corporations bought into the government specifically because it has the power to interfere in the market. Government interference has a long track record of starving out small competitive companies and stifling innovation, permitting near-monopoly conditions and the survival of giant megacorporations which would normally collapse under the weight of their own inefficiency. Were government to be disbarred from hindering the growth of small competitive business or gatekeeping market innovation, or fixing prices, then lean competitive companies would tear megacorporations to shreds.
"let's eliminate welfare so I can enjoy my money "
>get killed by someone who wants to feed their family
Um but libertarians told me this was a good idea??
"Let's give welfare to people who don't produce anything in society, let's also subsidize and support single motherhood."
>Loses half his money to a hundred different taxes and then gets killed by a nog on welfare while the economy sits on the brink of imploding.
Um, but, uh, sweetie, booboo, uh, like, statist told me this was a good idea??
>Just ponder for 5 seconds the absolute chaos that would ensue in areas that have huge poor black populations and what they would do if there was nothing stopping them from storming your property and taking it, along with the raping of your women and your head being caved in.
You know what made these huge poor black populations?
Decades of welfare from your precious government. After slavery ended, black families were quickly shedding poverty in a conservative society. But then, we have democrats feeling sooooo bad for the poor people that the have to pay them for doing nothing in the cities! Wow, sooo nice of them, to create nests of impoverished people who don't do shit to help themselves because they will be given money!
Too bad they used to be people earning honest livings and eradicating violence by principle of living in communities where hard work was expected and violence not tolerated. But now we subsidize the violent lazy poor and if you say anything about it you're racist.
Thanks liberals for shitting everything up by trying to give people money for votes and going against human nature.
What, do you think you're going to fend off a pack of 100 armed niggers with an MG-42 or something? Get real. The only thing stopping niggers from devouring you and the entire country with it are government benefits to keep them from super saiyan chimping and the threat of police/government taking their freedom or their life.
People need to be scared of consequences to not act like the animals we are. You and whatever arsenal you want aren't going to scare them, it takes a powerful entity looming over the populace. This is why religion is a thing. We need to be controlled. It even boils down to the family unit. Are you going to give your son a snek shirt and let him lob grenades at you if you tread on his nintendo time? People need to be controlled, it doesn't mean you need an authoritarian bootlicker state, but you are more insane than an authoritarian bootlicker state if you think we will just be able to govern ourselves without consequence.
You have the misconception that blacks would suddenly become wonderful thriving citizens abiding by your NAP if they weren't on welfare. They most certainly will not, and why you think otherwise is beyond me.
>He thinks niggers are afraid of the government.
Hahahaha, you're a fucking joke. In my shitty democrat run state cops barely even ever try to enter niggerhoods while nogs murder cops on the regular. Both entities suck us for welfare and neither of them contribute anything of value to society. Neither are punished either, and guess what, we the citizens put down more thugs than the police do. If all thugs fear is force then I posit they much more greatly fear a man with a gun in his hand in this state where the castle doctrine exists than they fear a cop who will hesitate to even pull his gun because das wud be wayciss.
>trusting the government to save you when all they have done is fuck things up for centuries
You're just gluttons for punishment, aren't you?
People are in power because we let them be in power.
Big-government democrats and RINOs will always advocate for Hegelian solutions that do not work, they are bandaids on the problem because we let the problem get too big.
There is a harpoon in America's side and you idiots want to cover it with gauze, pop some pain-killers and pretend it's not there while it festers and destroys America from within.
Libertarians and conservatives want to rip it out, disinfect, sew it up, and start healing.
We have to have some accountability and really uncomfortable times of "racist" policies that require our own citizens doing the labor, saving, and not capitulating to people whining about illegals, other countries, entitlement, saving money, learning solid skills, etc. That is the ONLY way forward.
>entire ideology based on "lmao just gas the jews"
It's not immediate change, dummy. It's generations of hard work and not allowing them to be lazy and violent. Plenty of white people will have to learn the hard way too.
That's how they were before welfare, having to work hard and survive in communities that shot or hung people for being violent thieves.
We need to reinstate policies of eradication of criminals, and not for-profit prisons or allowing our own government to commit a ton of trafficking crimes. But we keep electing people and not punishing and getting rid of the people who we discover have been perpetuating these policies and backdoor crimes. e.g. all the people who have come up in the Uranium 1 scandal, or Fast and Furious, etc
Welfare takes away the moral argument about theft. Without welfare, it can be argued that stealing your third luxury boat to sell for food is fine, but with welfare they can't make an argument that they needed to do it.
Neither is ethically defensible unless you are willing to defend theft. I sympathize with someone who steals to survive but my sympathy and their desperation does not magically make theft an ethical behavior.
>Are you going to give your son a snek shirt and let him lob grenades at you if you tread on his nintendo time?
First off, he's a kid, so you wouldn't automatically give him whatever he wants. In your metaphor, if the parent is the government and the child the People (obviously wrong if you believe in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution), then you already admit that the government is more right than the People and you are automatically talking about an authoritarian state and not the republic that America is meant to be.
You're operating under the assumption that most people are violent and will take whatever they can get by any means possible and throw tantrums if prevented from it. Some people are like that, but a lot are not and most people have been conditioned into entitlement (are not like that from birth). So we need to gradually return to a society where people are not given everything they want, and nor do they expect it.
A good consequence would be "my neighbor has an M16 and if I steal from or hurt him, he could shoot me."
Most people in the west are not violent and can be controlled by morals (even religion, which most learn in a normal nuclear family, another thing the government is trying to destroy) and the checks-and-balances of knowing that every person can provide their own defense
Why wouldn't I defend theft? Theft is acceptable in various situations.
Government makes these invasive regulations specifically due to the public demand of regulating big corps and monopoly-shit.
Unfortunately, its impossible to get elected without financial and publicity support from said corps/MSM, because they all have the same owners.
Smaller businesses are then hit, and dry up because of it, this is true.
If there were no regulations at all, however, the most successful -or cynical- of the bunch would eventually achieve monopoly all the same. Nothing would change.
>then lean competitive companies would tear megacorporations to shreds.
No, they wouldn't. No more than "ideal communism" would make everyone equal.
The established corps would just copy what the small business is doing right, then outcompete them through marketing, product-placement, or price. They have the assets to do this.
The flow of cheap labour from the 3rd world depresses minimum wages, and by proxy, also the buying power of the market. This is what is truly choking the entrepreneurs. Without assets, you can usually never compete against powers large enough to influence prices of materials merely by pulling strings. These powers-that-be would be very well served with the removal of regulations and human rights- which are only enforced by the government and absolutely no one else in the entire world.
And the result is that it doesen't cost you 1USD every time you flush your toilet.
I disagree and I suppose this is the core difference between me and any socialist, statist, or authoritarian. It is my contention that there is no situation which entitles me to someone else's property, work, time, or resources if they do not want to associate with me or give me their resources.
>and stuff should be cool
that's not part of it you literal tard. the nap is a personal philosophy, it's not a belief that other people necessarily follow it.
It's down to fundamental rights. It's self evident that their right to survive trumps your right to another luxury carpet, and it's very easy to say they're justified in stealing from you.
That is, unless you contribute to a welfare system. Then they have an alternative to stealing and can reasonably be killed for stealing
>Its not real communism!
Come on, you can't even do comparisons right. A better one would be something like
>Racism is prejudice plus power!
He's not saying that a NAP following society has never been tried, he said that the OP was defining the NAP wrong.
I disagree, I do not believe that anyone has a fundamental right to resources they did not discover, create, or purchase through voluntary contract. The thief may have a justification which would persuade other people to act charitably towards them so they no longer need to steal, however the thievery is to me still a distinctly immoral act.
>just let yourself starve LOL
Atlas Shrugged sucked and was undermined by its last scene
>you are defining my ideology wrong!
Now you're getting it! Still could use some work but at least you're targeting the shitpost correctly this time.
I'm not telling anyone to do anything, I'm just telling a thief that if he breaks into my house to steal that which he did not earn, while I may feel sorry for his situation I'm still going to shoot him for breaking into my house and stealing my shit.
The relative difference in our qualities of life does not to me justify his aggression against me, however his aggression against me does in my opinion justify me defending myself with whatever tools available.
The problem that arises is he won't be the only one and they may get organised and get popular support
Ok so you've got BLM or ANTIFA? Government doesn't do anything to stop them, hell if you payed attention to the news there's some pretty strong indications that instead of controlling them like you say government will, local governments at least actively encourage, protect, and allow them to mob up and become violent.
I think the better solution to them would be a pissed off store owner with a machinegun who's sick of having his establishment trashed.
as retarded and simple as it is, it works DAMN good in a low population density place with a high trust society. so anywhere other than a city.
ive always said that proximity based libertarianism is the future. further from the city? less laws
This would be a great start at least.
Like how the Roof Koreans had a much better success rate during the LA riots than business owners who waited for the cops to stop looters, for instance.
>roads
This, or (if I'm not mistaken) civvies putting down more terrorists than the CIA. I always get a laugh out of how nobodies with a handgun or AR have straight up killed more terrorists within the US than a multi-billion dollar state organization with sweeping unconstitutional powers and access to multiple other similar agencies each specializing supposedly in some facet of state security. Not to mention that civilians put down way more criminals (thus permanently removing vectors of crime) than do police.
Hissssssssss!
It gets a lot more sophisticated if you actually look into the details. It's like of like the game Go. The rules are so simple but it's a scarily complex game.
> this is literally the most infantile and retarded concept in the entire realm of politics
>be communist retard
>ENTIRE ideology is based upon "lmao your stuff belongs to me naow"
Not that would be you commie faggots
>I need mommy government to protect me from an entity that has no powers of compulsion over me
Nothing is more pathetic. I cannot believe you all can express such impotence and inefficacy, and call yourselves men.
imo politics that base themselves too much on "stuff" are retarded. libertarians are retarded because their pursuit of moar stuffs for themselves keeps them from actually improving their own society.
and on the flip side, commies pursuit of moar stuffs for the hive is retarded, as people will quickly become disillusioned by the fact that while their government is acquiring more resources, they see very little of it.
they both focus too much on material and personal or collective gain, and in practice, see very little of either. the useful forms of politics are the ones that provide stability, employment and happiness to its citizens. if you have a bunch of happy sheep, they will trust each other and things will flourish, and the shepherd will be in no danger of being fed to the wolves. but the people in control DO NOT see it this way. they see the people as cattle and will only try to milk them until the cattle bites back. then they simply change tactics. this is because they see it as a low risk. a couple "bad guys" get thrown under the bus, or indicted etc and then its business as usual.
what modern politics and politicians need is a little healthy fear of their cattle.
nice strawman.
People who believe in NAP are lying to you. They don't actually believe in it. Pic related.
Libertarianism is about solving the problems that stem from monopolistic power, not accumulating stuff. The ability to accumulate stuff is just a convenient side effect of having a sound legal system in which people can't arbitrarily steal your stuff.
hey im actually a libertarian myself somewhat, so i see where youre coming from. im just saying in practice, it seems to end up more like i stated, because not enough people are educated on the theory to allow for it to pan out the way it should.
but for gods sake, we should never try libertarianism anywhere near a city, it would be chaos. thats why i prefer proximity based libertarianism. further from the city? less laws
>ayyyy lemme tell ya: if ya just stay of ma property i wont drop ya of tha helicopter
Love the power fantasies when these guys are in no position of power or authority to set rules for anyone. Sorry, lads, but your screeching will never take you anywhere
Granted, but the problem is that cities as hubs of production are the places where reduced overtaxation and overregulation would most benefit the country. Obviously any move to wean city dwellers off the government would have to progress slowly since instant abolition of things like welfare and benefits would certainly result in rioting.
In the end though, I think all of society should be moving towards distributed power as opposed to centralized power, and individual self-sufficiency rather than collective dependency. Only a society where state functions consume less resources is even plausibly sustainable. As things are, the highly regulatory socialistic system we implement now absolutely will not last much longer.
They are larpers or am*ricans, you are not meant to take them seriously.
I think a libertarian city might work if it were designed as 100% private property from the outset. Trying to convert an existing city would be challenging to say the least.
I'm not sure to what extent people would have their own private land inside of a libertarian city though. It might be possible, but another possibility might be for a company to buy a lot of land and rent pieces of it to tenants who pre-agreed to abide by the company's administrative decisions.
People would need to experiment to find out what worked.
NAP is retarded. There are plenty of ways to fuck the population over without violating the NAP. Also, there's no such thing as "natural rights".
In case anyone wonders what the difference would be between a government and a company that owned land: Companies buy or homestead land; governments arbitrarily claim territory people already live on.
How is it any dumber than Sup Forumss
>lmao just let me murder some Jewish families and the world will magically become perfect
Ideology?
So the difference is that the latter hurts your feelings?
See Argumentation Ethics: en.wikipedia.org
No, the difference is the same as the difference between buying from a store versus robbing it.
Easily refuted: my control of my own body doesn't take away your rights control my body. Hoppe's not making the distinction between negative and positive rights
lol
>Are there even any libertarian countries?
no. And can you figure out why?
>the most infantile and retarded concept in the entire realm of politics
communism? I thought you were talking about the NAP
cannot you focus for a minute?
Are you suggesting people have a right to violate the rights of others? Am I reading this correctly?
You've obviously never used a private road before. NEEEEXT.
>Granted, but the problem is that cities as hubs of production are the places where reduced overtaxation and overregulation would most benefit the country.
true. but the society would likely descend into chaos as black market would become regular market, and youd basically have druglords running whole sections of the city by the end of the month.
if drugs and the already steep societal decay werent a factor it would simply be a matter of weaning people off of welfare dependency. but alas, we arent there yet.
>I think a libertarian city might work if it were designed as 100% private property from the outset. Trying to convert an existing city would be challenging to say the least.
right. given todays society, it might just be impossible.
>I'm not sure to what extent people would have their own private land inside of a libertarian city though. It might be possible, but another possibility might be for a company to buy a lot of land and rent pieces of it to tenants who pre-agreed to abide by the company's administrative decisions.
so if im picking up what youre putting down, cities would be entirely owned by companies and corporations. so would the people then have to live outside the city and commute in? that would kind of destroy the convenience of living in a city in the first place. or would companys give out boarding houses for people to crash in during the work week (sounds too much like commie talk for my blood)? what exactly do you mean by 100% privately owned city?
>Libertarianism seems like a precursor to segmented communities with their own laws, customs and people.
Exactly. Instead of fighting over whose rules are the best all the time, we could all live according to our own preferred rule sets.
NAP only applies to adults. This is like saying you cant tell your children what to do.
>rights of others
You didn't establish any negative rights to yourself. Establish those rights first.
The idea is if Alice violates the NAP with Bob by squatting on it and refusing to leave, Bob can use as much force he seems necessary to make it stop. If that means simply asking politely or McNuking Alice, so be it.
Why would any governing body allow for such countries to exist? They dont exist because of corruption and self centred governing. not because it wouldn't work.
Change "O say" to Jose. Then you have a winner.
>negative rights
So the second you turn into an 'adult' are you going to kys, faggot? You can't even quantify that. The rules don't apply to you until you say so? Wat??
No, the difference is that in one you enter into a voluntary contract with another individual or entity and both of you work terms until both are satisfied and both generally have legal recourse if one or the other of them fails to fulfill the contract. In the other one party with a monopoly on use of violence claims the other's property or resources without contract and as governments now do proceeds to extort the smaller entity for a continuous stream of resources. If the smaller entity disagrees it is generally either expelled or killed, or otherwise subjected to a form a retaliation economic or physical.
One of these systems we call free enterprise, and in all cases except for muh speshul snowflake government we would call this criminality. At the very best a government is on equal moral footing with a competent gang, they may actually provide some beneficial service but those extorted for protection lack a substantive choice in whether or not they are extorted.