What is your honest opinion on the following argument:

What is your honest opinion on the following argument:
>As long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends

Think hard before you answer that question.

Other urls found in this thread:

bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/trade-and-peace/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I agree

The final argument to the single mother problem.

There's still enough wiggle room to physically remove leftists.

"Not harming" is too ambiguous

The NAP is a fucking joke. You are harming other people by doing anything in the world. If i eat a fruit from a tree then i also prevent everyone else in the world from eating that fruit. If i chop down some trees and use them to build a house then i prevent other people from using those trees. If i kill an animal and eat it then i prevent other people from killing or taming or otherwise utilizing that animal. This can be extended to every natural resource on the planet. The end result is ALWAYS an uneven distribution of wealth in the world and conflict. And so as Hobbes said, to avoid the "state of nature" or "anarchy", where all men fight each other over resources there arises a need for a powerful state with a monopoly on force, to enforce property and peaceful interaction between men. Fucking an-caps and their legitimate autism, almost as bad as communists.

Ultimately a stupid argument. Everyone one does can be spun to harm someone else.

An example:

bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/trade-and-peace/

Far too ambiguous, I will not waste my time assigning absolute morality to some pollack's vague aphorisms.

It's true in a society were everyone is self sufficient, can defend themselves etc.
Since we all agreed to put someone in charge of all of us. We live as a society. So individuals can't do things that harm this society

ie : abortion, promoting mass imigration, degenerate behavior like drugs, alcohol, obesity, since it hurt the society by asking others to pay for there degeneracy (rehab, medical care, criminality etc.)

The problem with this sentence is that it's used by people that want to use violence to fight against the right to discriminate different lifestyles (discrimination isn't necessarily violent).

wow lolbertarianism btfod by a mongol myth
my almonds have been activated

Sure.

People should be allowed to do what they want and they will get what they deserve.

NAP is not one and only law, it should be the principle behind a minimalistic set of laws.
basicly remove all victimless crimes and intellectual property.

OR you may introduce into concept of crime that it necessarily includes a victim and physical damage or action against said victim.

but how many black kids will we ultimately end up paying for without abortion?

>As long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends

I agree.

Would drunk driving only be considered a crime if results in an accident in a society that followed that statement?

Forgive my low IQ and/or ignorance, but isn't that what a republic society built on? If a law is passed that you can only water the lawn at a certain time, I can ignore ("I here what you are saying, but I am going to water my law whenever I want.")

Democracy - ex. Supreme court. 5 to 4 vote. 4 votes don't. After and the ruling applies to everyone.

Republic - ex Criminal court. 9 to 3 vote in favor of a guilty verdict. The 3 votes are taken into account and the defendant can't be found guilty.

I disagree. I believe bad behavior should be discouraged and sometimes even punished, even if there's no immediate harm to others. Not all bad behavior has immediate harm to others. The "if you don't like it just don't look" argument is really shit in my eyes for society at large and will eventually degrade it.

Take for am extreme hyperbolic example necrophilia. A person digging up a corpse to fuck it, then burying it again and never telling one does not harm anyone, yet it's undeniably bad behavior that should be discouraged and punished

Aleister Crowley and Thelema "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will"

Do what you want but cause no harm. I can see no problems with it. Other than it involves humans and we're selfish.

Humans are not islands so any kind of degenerate behaviour has knock-on effects.

Define harm.

Hobbes' theory of the state of nature was based on flawed premises.

Harming others is fundamental to leftism.

>The "if you don't like it just don't look" argument is really shit in my eyes for society at large and will eventually degrade it.

Isn't that the argument for cyber bullying? Just turn off the computer. Walk away. Ignore comments.

Is your body your property?
Could you differentiate?

because of the interrelatedness of our actions, it's impossible to arrive at a definition of harm that is acceptable to all people. Some people will define some behaviors as harmful that others see as harmless exercise of personal rights.

The debate will rage until the sun dies. There is no such thing as a harmless action. In order to achieve a goal, you must transform one form of matter or energy into another, and this transformation has effects that reach infinitely out into the universe and into society as well. Because people disagree about how we should shape our world, the concept of a "harmless" action is philosophically bunk aside from being a convenient excuse for people to disguise their needlessly destructive behaviors.

Virtue is a verb, not a noun. We will always, always be locked in the strive for better virtue that produces a better world, and thoughts like this one (do what you want as long as it harms none) will forever be short-term experiments in virtue that either produce a desired effect or do not, and they will always always die to make room for the next experiment.

Typical "property is theft" position.

Becoming the original proprietor of something is harmful. This kind of thinking would lead to extinction.

No matter what you do, your actions will affect others, the only way to not affect others is to truly not do shit, which is unacceptable since NEETS are a waste of space and oxygen

These. People who smoke weed or have gay sex are assaulting my feelings.