Yeah i know, it's not supposed to happen, theoretically... On the paper.
But, well, i am sure that, at some point, things would end up like this, sorry.

So, no BiG TaXeS ?

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Feb 16 2019 08:23pm

No, ickyness is not what determines aggression.
I already defined it for you.
Sometimes thinking and reasoning and argumentation is required to determine if something is aggression or not.

Likewise, sometimes thinking and reasoning is required to determine if someone has entered an implicit contract with someone else.
These are not unique concepts to libertarianism. Thats life. People have to figure things out and not everything is immediately made clear in one sentence or without thinking about it.

You are trying to reach back for that portrayal of the non-aggression principle when there is no merit to your claim.

I asked earlier, whats your definition or principle that explicitly and rigidly covers any and all punishable offenses with no further clarification or reasoning needed?
Oh it doesn't exist. who knew?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 16 2019 08:25pm

You defined aggression, I brought up an obvious aggression that wasn't included in your definition, and then you said that your definition doesn't capture every case of aggression.

You aren't willing to stick to the definition of aggression you gave. Every time I bring up a contradiction your only response is "Libertarians have written about it". You have no defense for your belief system, you can only vaguely allude to others who have made defenses.

Your last line is just deflection. You are the one positing Libertarianism, it's on you to defend it.



It's life, you just have to use reason to determine if there was an implicit contract? That's why we have courts, something that doesn't really exist in Libertania. I asked you how you would actually enforce these implicit contracts, since we have a mechanism in the real world. Your answer is a non-starter.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 16 2019 08:30pm

I have successfully defended it.

alas, making anti-liberty activists support liberty is harder to do.

Dodge.

Building fair and balanced regulations is way harder that letting chaos spread while waiting the collapse of ecosystems

On the other hand, yes congrats ! You are now a certified black&yellow warrior !

I will also say that you claiming i am not sticking with the definition is also false.
Additional clarification, explanation and examination of whether a specific issue is covered in the definition is not an abandonment of the definition.

meanwhile you have dodged how many questions now?

When you say that your definition of aggression doesn't cover all cases of aggression then that means you're not sticking to that definition. You're having to evoke a second definition to categorize my scenario as an aggression.

I'm not looking for a definition that covers EVERYTHING. No moral system covers EVERYTHING.

I'm just looking for a definition that covers the most obvious things. Just get something that covers those very basic scenarios I have laid out in this thread and I'd be more than happy to concede that you've got at least a functional political/moral philosophy.

what i actually said:

"Of course a single sentence description is never going to be explicit in how it applies to literally every weird situation one can imagine."

The libertarian definition of the word aggression has no need to conform to your whims and demands.
Claiming its not functional otherwise is just your shit opinion.

I never said it needs to be one sentence, I also literally just said I'm not asking you to cover every weird situation.

The situations I gave aren't even weird, they're literally some of the easiest scenarios I could think of. As black and white as it gets.

If your philosophy can't even cover these kindergarten level scenarios then it's not functional. That's not my opinion, it's a fact.