Are you claiming that credible threats of violence and coercion aren't crimes, or just that they aren't crimes when men and women calling themselves government do it?
That's what's wrong with statists.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Are you claiming that credible threats of violence and coercion aren't crimes, or just that they aren't crimes when men and women calling themselves government do it?
That's what's wrong with statists.
Probably refers to this part
FYI your natural unalienable rights are property. If someone infringes upon your rights, your property has been damaged.
Yeah, I don't think that is a logical response to the question. Here's an upvote for you to try again.
If I give a dumb answer to something can I get an upvote too? ;)
done. :)
He's the one claiming you need
If all shots missed, no damages were incurred.
You need context. This is about the U.S legal system. We believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, which means that we believe that the initiation of force is objectively immoral, and criminal.
Criminal? Who's writing that law in anarchist society?
And no, not out of context. I'm pointing out the flaw in his understanding of that principle. It's absolutely a crime despite no measurable damage to a victim.
@jaredhowe: I don't know who you're arguing with, but it ain't me. Nothing you just said has anything to do with what I've said.
The initiation of force is objectively immoral and criminal, therefore you can't fathom why I would want to help people defend themselves when force is initiated against them by statists?
This is about the best argument against your argument.
I'm really struggling with this entire anarchist thing. The system we currently have is the worst ever conceived, except for all the others before. I don't see how this is realistically feasible. There are costs for victimless crimes. Legalize drugs? Sure, I can entertain that - especially not making it criminal. But, who is going to administer violent crimes? You? Me? This seems to require structure.