How do you like us libertarians now?

no, yours is a naive view of the whole thing

 

I'm not sure why you think so. You seem to be the one that is arguing that an imminent nuclear assault is NOT aggression, while I recognize that it should be treated as aggression. I would argue that it is your view of aggression that is naive. Aggression has not occurred until the nukes land? Really?

 

How come conspiracy to commit a murder is itself a crime, even if you haven't done anything yet to harm the person?

 

your comments get more naive each time

 

Precisely. You can't be naive and say, "But the bullet didn't hit his body yet, so no aggression has occurred." You have to be realistic and realize that aggression is imminent.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure I agree.

 

what a j joke

 

He also said that the U.S. became wealthy from economic policies that happened years after the U.S. was actually wealthy. He's a plant, there is no discussion, he's just disagreeing.

 

Your position that a person must stand idly by while an attack is planned and executed seems the more naive position, if you ask me. You seem to think aggression only occurs when the bullet hits the body. I recognize that there are several steps prior to that that constitute an initiation of aggression.

 

no, it's not

stop being so naive

 

I just committed a crime; I was drinking in public. Should force be used against me? Do you agree with the drug war, you know to lock up users, dealers, and producers? Do you believe protesters should be forcibly removed? If you answer no then you are not the kind of person I was talking about and I have a new respect for you. If not you are more of the same.

 

That is simply not supported by the evidence. The gap between the wealthy and the poor was far smaller in the 50s, 60s, and 70s than it was in the late 19th and early 20th century.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

 

Honestly, I've never seen why this matters. How much someone else makes only effects me to the point of the value of money. If someone can buy 500 homes what do I care so long as I can buy one.

 

You're being very unclear about your position. Maybe you could back up and explain when you consider aggression to be ethically justified.

 

Class envy is a concept that has been exploited by politicians for years and instilled into the populace from a very young age as a tool to unjustifiably initiate various forms of aggression against otherwise peaceful folks such as income tax, estate tax and inheritance tax all the way to the "mob rules" mentality we see on display daily on this forum.

 

that's funny coming from the guy that's against initiating aggression, then chose to attack first

 

Nope. They were launching a nuclear assault. They attacked first.

As I said, I consider aggression to be ethically justified in response to an attack. When do you consider aggression to be ethically justified?

 

no, you did

no, they were planning to launch one, like north korea or perhaps iran

 

Try to keep your scenario straight. You said they were launching a nuclear assault. That means the attacked first. A nuclear assault is an attack.

 

no, i didn't say that

i said they were going to, but you attacked them first

 

Yes, I responded to their imminent attack. The non-aggression principle is that aggression is only justified IN RESPONSE to aggression. Their imminent attack IS aggression, and it is justifiable to respond to it with force.

 

it wasn't imminent, it was in the planning and development phase

we didn't even have the capability to attack yet, you must have read something into the intelligence you were given, that wasn't there

you attacked bonsvoisins first, my neighboring country hadn't lifted a finger

your initiation of violence most certainly did violate very basic non-aggression principles

if this were real, i'd taking the case to the u.n. and charging you with war crimes and accord violations

 

Because you have one house, one guy has 500, and thousands have no house at all. That would be the problem. This idea that wealth is an unlimited pie, where anyone can take a slice anytime they want, is absurd nonsense. It is propaganda promoted by capitalists to support their activities. As one group garners more and more wealth, the rest of society is floundering. Since Reagan's presidency, we have seen the income of the top 1% increase substantially, while the average real wage has been stagnant. That means it does have an impact on everyone else. Not everyone has access to the unlimited money pie anymore (not that they ever did), now only the very wealthy have access to that pie. That is a serious problem for society.


PS. It is government granted privilege and government intervention which allows individuals and companies to accrue such massive amounts of wealth. Libertarians should oppose that sort of thing....

 

Yes, he did say that:

 

They do for that very reason, and are the only ones who completely oppose the government picking winners and losers.