• Rottcodd@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    violate the NAP

    not one of those crazy ones

    These two statements contradict each other.

    The NAP is a substitute for laws for “libertarians” who can’t tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.

    The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others. So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it’s a violation of the NAP, so you’re now entirely justified in shooting them.

    • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The NAP is a substitute for laws for “libertarians” who can’t tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.

      The NAP is not a substitute for laws. I would argue that it is a framework, or set of principles by which laws are created. Also I do not understand what you are implying in the second part of that statement.

      The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others.

      This is blatantly false. Libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to the idea of “the forcible imposition of your will upon others”.

      So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it’s a violation of the NAP, so you’re now entirely justified in shooting them.

      Can you define “something of which you disapprove”?

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really. It only seems that way because most of us have only had experiences with the psychotic capitalist neo-libertarians of the Murray Rothbard school.

      Actual libertarians, left libertarians. Can definitely get pretty squirrely when you get out on the fringes of ideologic anarchists etc. But many are fairly rational and even generally pro social democracy.

      Right-wing libertarians are just an oxymoron. Under capitalism none of us can truly be free and we are all subject to the whims of wealth hoarding psychotic oligarch monkeys. They’ll tell you that you’re free not to work for them. The only problem is choosing not to work for them means choosing starvation, homelessness, and death. Which isn’t the sort of thing that should be considered a choice in any civil society. But absolute necessities for unsustainable systems such as capitalism.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Libertarianism is, generally, mostly interested in freedom under the state. Libertarianism is at the core of capitalism; however, it must be made clear that a properly funcioning free-market requires some state regulation in order to ensure fair competition.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not really. Libertarianism is mostly interested in freedom FROM the state. And freedom from oligarchs of all stripes. Especially the ones inherent to all forms of capitalism. Of which “free market” is the worst about. Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism. In the fact that you realistically can’t choose not to be part of it. Under capitalism those of us that are not born into oligarchy or happened to luck into oligarchy end up basically slaves to the oligarchs for our wages and basic survival. There’s no liberty in that.

          • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Libertarianism is mostly interested in freedom FROM the state.

            Freedom from the state, to me, implies anarchy. I interperet your wording to say that a libertarian would want the freedom to opt out of governence – this makes little to no sense. It is true in that a citizen should certainly have the freedom to emigrate, but I’m not convinced that this is what you were implying.

            And freedom from oligarchs of all stripes. Especially the ones inherent to all forms of capitalism. Of which “free market” is the worst about.

            Why do you argue that the free market will always result in an oligarchy? I will say that a wholly unregulated free market will result in rampant anti-competitive behaviour which will end up being at the expense of the consumer. So, by that logic, some regulation is certainly necessary to ensure fair competition. This sort of well functioning free market should be the antidote to an oligarchy, unless the public wills it to be so.

            Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism

            I would argue that capitalism is founded upon the ideals of libertarianism.

            In the fact that you realistically can’t choose not to be part of it.

            You can choose to not participate in the free market – create your own local commune where you all freely share your own private goods.

            Under capitalism those of us that are not born into oligarchy or happened to luck into oligarchy end up basically slaves to the oligarchs for our wages and basic survival.

            Again, no one is forcing you to play a part in the capitalist system. You could grab a farm out in the middle of nowhere, completely off the grid and live off of your own goods (assuming you have some means to cover a theoretical minimum of property tax). That is, of course, unless you are advocating for socialism in that the government should be providing for you.

    • johker216@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the NAP is a principle not a substitute set of laws. It applies equally to an individual or to groups affected by a policy; the point is to lessen, not eliminate, ‘agression’ on balance and holistically. What you’re describing is used not just by ‘libertarians’ but by anyone that doesn’t want a law to apply to them.

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the point is to lessen, not eliminate, ‘agression’

        Did you overlook the “non” in “non-aggression principle”?

        What you’re describing is used not just by ‘libertarians’ but by anyone that doesn’t want a law to apply to them.

        You think that libertarians don’t think laws apply to them…?

      • Rottcodd@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The NAP is only colorably considered a “principle” when one applies it toward one’s own life and one’s own choices. That’s notably NOT the way that the “libertarians” who pay it the most lip service use it.

        Instead, they apply it to other people’s lives and other people’s choices. And the explicit point is to measure the nominal accepability of those other people’s lives and choices, and as necessary to provide colorable justification for imposing their wills on those other people in order to prevent or punish the “wrong” choices.

        That’s the exact function of law, simply transferred to a different concept.

        • johker216@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t this entire thread about “libertarians” vs libertarians? I’m not sure who you’re trying to argue with but it certainly isn’t me 😁

        • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          By “libertarians”, are you referring to the non-libertarians that OP was outlining in their post?