Daily Anarchist Forum
February 01, 2023, 09:24:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: NAP is justification of immoral behavior  (Read 3634 times)
rangerk
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


View Profile
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:29:22 AM »

From my friend Curt Doolittle.  (He is right.)

WHY? THE FALLACY OF NON AGGRESSION AS JUSTIFICATION.

Why would you develop an ethics of non-aggression rather than an ethic of non-theft, for a philosophical framework that purports to reduce all right to property rights, for some reason other than legitimizing deception and forbidding retaliation for deception?

You see, cosmopolitanism is merely a philosophical framework for justificationism.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2014, 09:59:50 AM »

From my friend Curt Doolittle.  (He is right.)

WHY? THE FALLACY OF NON AGGRESSION AS JUSTIFICATION.

Why would you develop an ethics of non-aggression rather than an ethic of non-theft, for a philosophical framework that purports to reduce all right to property rights, for some reason other than legitimizing deception and forbidding retaliation for deception?

You see, cosmopolitanism is merely a philosophical framework for justificationism.

Theft is aggression.  Deception is fraud, which is aggression.  The concept is non-initiation of force.  What you call retaliation would not be the initiation of force.  Do some reading before you make useless posts.  You are talking about pacifism.  That is why we call it non-aggression, not non-violence, or non-self defense.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 10:25:05 AM by Syock » Logged

rothbardgroupie
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2014, 12:04:57 PM »

From my friend Curt Doolittle.  (He is right.)

WHY? THE FALLACY OF NON AGGRESSION AS JUSTIFICATION.

Why would you develop an ethics of non-aggression rather than an ethic of non-theft, for a philosophical framework that purports to reduce all right to property rights, for some reason other than legitimizing deception and forbidding retaliation for deception?

You see, cosmopolitanism is merely a philosophical framework for justificationism.

A sophisticated criticism of libertarianism would start by noticing that the very concept of aggression presupposes a scheme of property rights.  Only this is not some thing that libertarians don't talk about:

http://mises.org/daily/3660

Which leads to polycentric law, which also already exists as part of libertarian philosophy.

Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!