How do you like us libertarians now?

Not particularly, no.

You haven't explained why you assert that I am naive about the justifications for aggression.

My contention is that aggression is only ethically justified IN RESPONSE TO aggression and that it is ethically unjustified to INITIATE aggression against other people.

Do you think it is ethically justified to initiate (please note the word initiate) aggression against other people?

 

what if you know with 100% certainty, that a neighboring country is going to launch an overwhelming nuclear assault on your country

do you attack them first and kill their plans or wait for them to initiate aggression?

just to make this interesting, say i'm the neighboring country planning the assault

and let's see who wins the war

 

You attack them to stop their aggression.

 

you just violated the principle of nonaggression

 

I'm not sure I agree. The other country was initiating aggression against me and I was responding to that initiation of aggression.

 

you initiated aggression by attacking first

 

We appear to have a disagreement over what constitutes an initiation of aggression. I consider the threat of aggression to actually be aggression. Thus, if someone looks at me, picks up a baseball bat, and begins to move towards me in a threatening manner, I consider than an initiation of aggression, despite the fact that the bat has not struck my head yet.

I don't think you and I disagree about the non-aggression principle as much as we disagree about what constitutes an initiation of aggression.

 

^In most states you can shoot the guy with the baseball bat legally.

This is from quite a few pages back, but that Zonation video really shows that he doesn't quite understand Libertarian philosophy. Most people don't because it is completely different from what common knowledge is taught. It's pretty rare to find someone who really understands Libertarian ideas and be completely against it.

You have to understand that STRONG PROPERTY RIGHTS are at the very core of Libertarian philosophy. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html

Too many people think that less restrictions mean no laws against financial fraud or other money crimes. That's not true, and in many cases strong property rights laws would be less lenient then what we have now.

 

Another silly thing that people don't really think through. The nap is something to strive for and try to live by in every instance. I do not think that if we had a Libertarian society when Hitler was storming Europe, I believe that even the strongest supporters of the NAP would be willing to attack someone who was threatening being able to take over the world. In that once ever century situation, I believe people wouldn't blindly march off a cliff so that they could remembered as hard core Libertarians. There just really isn't that many situations in life that call for that.

 

Still don't like you guys at all. Despite overwhelming evidence of your failed economic philosophy you still cling to it. Amazing!

 

The greatest advances against poverty were in the United States when we had more austerity then anyone in the history of the world. The growing gap between the have's and the have not's increased in the 20th century when we started trying to legislate prosperity. It was only a few weeks ago, Bono(lead singer of U2 who has been trying to save the poor in Africa forever now), came out and said that financial aid is only a temporary way to help the poor. To really bring Africa out of poverty they needed capitalism, it took him forever to finally realize that.

Communist countries tried to run an economy with an absurd amount of state control, after millions starved and it failed, they had to go with a more free economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD5luu_UTzc

 

Libertarianism is not an economic philosophy. It is a political philosophy.

 

like when exactly?

any political entity needs an economy to stay afloat

libertarianism is usually closely associated with laissez-faire economic systems

the example i gave involved no expressed threats by the neighboring country

your example is too simplistic, crafty aggressors don't fight with bats, they use stealthy wmd

but even given your example, you could easily be set up so that you never saw the bat coming

thusly my initial assessment of naiveté on your part

it's often difficult to determine who the aggressor is, for example with the usa today

we're not being aggressors in syria, we're trying bring stability by enforcing international laws and accords

 

Everything before the early 1900's.

 

just like i thought, you have no clue what you're talking about

 

HAHAHA you think posting a picture of clothed children carrying sacks proves something? If you think that's bad, you should see the nations with government run economies full of naked children starving to death. You're not worth this response.

What would you contribute our rise to being the wealthiest nation to?

 

i think you know little about economic history and the robber barons

economic theories developed after the mid-20th century

 

What is this supposed to prove?

 

who said it proves anything?

 

That's funny you say that, because the fact that we were a wealthy nation before the mid-20th century seems to be escaping YOU.

- - - Updated - - -

He has keyboard turrets, random stuff just gets posted with no relevance.

 

We were already wealthy and powerful long before that.

What is it supposed to demonstrate or signify?

 

like i said, you don't seem to have a clue about economic history

a few people were, robber barons swallowed smaller fish, whole

reality

 

Tom Woods has a Phd in History, does he know what he's talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jml2OG8DLQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVAxNqRTKY

 

what a joke, he's a neo-confederate, bootlicking lackey of the mises institute

politically biased revisionists like him, are the reason people laugh at libertarians

 

Nonetheless, libertarianism is a political philosophy, not an economic philosophy.

You and I have different understandings of what aggression might be. You seem to have a very narrow definition of aggression, while mine is broader. I disagree with you that aggression does not occur until after the damage has been done. I think that one could be initiating aggression even though one's plans have not been carried out or come to fruition.

For instance, one could be sitting in one's apartment looking out the window, with a rifle. One could load the rifle. One could raise the rifle and point it at people on the street. One could put a person in one's sights and place one's finger on the trigger. You seem to be saying that none of this is aggression, but I disagree. Even though the trigger has not yet been pulled, I would argue that this is an act of aggression in progress, and it would be perfectly justifiable to use violence to stop the shooting before the actual shot is fired.

But that's just a matter of deciding whether any particular act is or isn't aggression. The non-aggression principle still holds regardless. It it not justified to INITIATE aggression against someone who has not initiated aggression (or is not initiating aggression).