Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
That’s right, I’m a believer in the Non-Aggression Principle. Google it when you get a spare moment. (Also google “voluntaryism” and “libertarianism.”)This is my understanding of it and I wanted to Ponify it. XDFluttershy (c) HASBROFluttershy vector by Felix-KoTPhotoshop manips by me.
Actually Anarchy is the natural state of affairs, under Capatalism with little to no Government intervention, Anarcho Capatalism occurs naturally. It already happens in the form of innovation and exploration in disregard to regulations. Implementing Anarcho Capatalism is the idea that Government should be limited to the extent of non-existence except on those that impose governmental aggression on others. Thus they have broken the pact and have volunteered to not be protected by NAP thus to the degree that they are reasonably proven to have broke it is the degree every militia is allowed to act upon them to Police them. The ones acting upon those who have broken the contract are not breaking NAP because they are not imposing power upon those who still follow it. Anarcho Capatalism is a series of contracts that people can choose to have expire. Unlike Governments that can act against peoples wishes and freedoms, a system such as this puts the people above Government. This is a cutesy meme that does not cover every aspect of NAP.
You’re still not allowed back in the US, Polanski.
I believe your usual, ‘average American’ libertarians are okay with government, but wish states were given more rights rather than the federal government and would loosen regulation on guns, economy and such.
The only people I’ve seen showing support for the NAP are AnCap types.
Also there’s this: https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/six-reasons-libertarians-should-reject-non-aggression-principle
Edited
Perhaps that is so. I was merely addressing this form of libertarianism. Hence, why I said “as it is presented, this is not reasonable or realistic.” If there exists a sect of libertarianism that does not follow this unreaistic ideology of NAP and live-and-let-live then its followers are clearly the reasonable ones out of the bunch.
I once read a book called Practical Anarchy, and it sounded quite orderly, if not stringent. Definitely not tribal, either.
I thought most libertarians still believed in the state and don’t follow the N.A.P.
And you know what I mean, so don’t use the “you know what I mean” excuse when you are just as guilty as I.
My mistake. Maybe I should’ve used “countrymen” or “people of a country” instead of “country.”
Having said that, you know what I mean. A “tribe” is a group of people living in a certain area. Some of those areas are called “countries,” about 200 of them in fact.
The world is still divided by our “countries,” just like we were once divided by our “tribes” hundreds and thousands of years ago. Some of them mix better than others.
Edited
Actually, no. We have different words for different things for a reason. ‘Tribe’ and ‘country’ are not synonyms. You can make comparisons, but they are not synonyms by any stretch of the definition.
Your mileage may vary. I would just prefer to die on my feet than live on my knees
Tribes still exist…we just call them “countries” now.
Totalitarianism and anarchism is the difference between uneasy order and uncertain chaos. Personally, I’d choose uneasy order over uncertain chaos, but only because uncertain chaos would be the end of society. A true anarchist society would be no society. I do not want to live like tribal people.
Edited
This is the basis by which people denounce, rightfully so, libertarianism as anarchistic. This clause, by its very nature, prevents law enforcement from properly doing their jobs. What is the FIRST THING out of someone’s mouth when they’re detained by a law enforcement officer? “I didn’t do anything”. If the rules of your society dictate that ALL interactions be voluntary, then every single criminal would say to a responding lEO “I don’t consent to this stop/arrest, therefore your authority is null and I will be on my way”. That. Is. Anarchy. And if you equivocate it by saying “unless they have a warrant” you are contradicting the “no coercion” portion of the clause because, in the performance of his duties, a LEO MUST use coercion on unwilling individuals, so that the legal system may render unto them a judgment for their criminal acts. Already, when presented with real-world scenarios that challenge the tenets of libertarianism, a libertaran says “well unless they have X”, or “well obviously that wouldn’t apply.” RIGHT OFF THE BAT, a libertarian has to issue caveats and equivocations and adjustments to their ideology in the face of reality. As @TexasUberAlles explained, this manner of extreme “live-and-let-live” is self-destructive and leads to almost-immediate collapse. It is, frankly, woefully naive and optimistic. This is not, as it is presented, a reasonable or realistic manner of government, and don’t feed me that crap about how it “hasn’t been tested” because “the state gets in the way”. Humans existed in a manner similar to live-and-let-live for thousands of years, and life was short, violent, and brutal, with every man clobbering his neighbor to steal his food, water, or women. Because, surprise surprise, when you wring your hands and preach “non-aggression”, the aggressive and the powerful will consume(perhaps even literally as, once again, TexasUberAllies pointed out) the weak among them for their own gains.
Now, having said all that, if you asked me “which would you prefer? Anarchism, or totalitarianism?”, I would pick anarchism every single day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
yeah. pretty much.
Well, that explains it. I only saw that movie once, back when it came out.