In the libertarian paradise, what prevents me from stopping my car in the middle of the freeway, bring out a table and drink some coffee?
Assuming: I paid to use the freeway and I'm not violating the NAP. Other people can't remove my car, my table and I by force.
Other libertarians with guns who won't put up with your shit.
>Violating the NAP
but thats illegal and wont be tolerated
The owner of the road.
What if he never wrote any rule about this? Rules are not retroactive. I'll stay on the freeway for as long as I want, I paid to use it.
And the "use" part of the contract never specified any amount of time I'm on it and the way I'm using it.
Yout impedent of their travel on the roads they paid for could be considered an act of aggression. (Unless the Jew, Megacorporation or Warlord whose road you a driving on says otherwise)
if you don't like it then build your own road
Thats convienient. Did the contact also state you can be a complete faggot?
obviously clauses would be written into it you moron.
They should build their own roads if they're not happy with me drinking my coffee.
Ad hominem is not an argument.
>obviously clauses would be written into it you moron.
Then it would set a precedent for sure, but I'm still physically here on the road. You can't remove me by force.
>mfw lolbertarianism is just adults playing Calvinball
Why would you want to be a sack of shit making life harder for the next man? In any paradise people like you would hopefully be killed quickly for the greater good of society
You are the reason people say libertarians are autistic
>I support violence against you
That's fascism.
Not an argument.
communist rhetoric or ancap?
That is passive aggressive
Neither..I'm just an asshole who doesn't like traffic
Then if you consider passive-aggressive behavior a form of violation of the NAP, thought crimes would be aswell. There is no upper limit on this slippery slope.
Should we redefine the NAP to suit your needs?
>Not an argument
No on is trying to argue, you fucking autist
lmao neck yourself. I'll even sell you the rope
You don't pay for total and complete use of the road, you enter a private contract that stipulates what is considered legitimate use of the property.
There already are laws allowing such activities, the table just needs wheels,seat belts,airbags,insurance and an MOT cert, and obey speed restrictions.
I use a cup holder.
No he proves why libertarians are autistic and their belifs are retarded.
Dicks like OP are why a Libertarian society won't work.
Would you pay to use a road which could be blocked arbitrarily by other users? Road owners be they governments or companies tend to have rules about that sort of thing.
Nap is the basic frame of laws, but private property has no limit to the amount of laws.
No successful road owner will ever be totally unprotected against people who refuse to drive and put others lives at risk, if you ever did this, the next day the owner of the road (and all owners of roads around the country) will learn the lesson and add a clause that protects them from it.
Chances are that you will have to leave the road eventually, owner will reserve his right to close the road and nobody will bring you food, so yeah, you will be able to "beat the system" for a day if the road owners were so dumb that they didn't include a right of admission provision (completely unrealistic, but hey, so are 99% of arguments against libertarianism).
This is yet again another strawman against libertarianism by not understanding that the NAP is only the minimum amount of laws required for prosperous societies to flourish, but what we really advocate for is private property.