Message from @William
Discord ID: 696472381027254363
Do I have a secession right?
lolberts may be bullied
nice
lolberts?
*bang*
bang bang
>still believing in the NAP in 2020
For some reason, being libertarian equals lolbertarian 😂
Yes.
Most libertarians are lolberts
@William the doomer anglo is also here
Yes.
WELCOME ALL
```Most libertarians are lolberts```
Sadly true. The best thing that could happen for the libertarian cause is the dissolution of the LP.
Among other organizations
Lolbergs have a terrible understanding of power
Yeah, that's the biggest blind spot in the Mises Institute and others I think as well
Libertarians only see hard power but don't understand soft power
?
Furthermore, intersubjectively verifiable property (libertarian property norms) doesn't include things such as social norms, language, culture and other things that are important in maintaining a civilisation
Libertarians are very good at seeing the problems with 'hard power' e.g. power that uses coercion to get its way or maintain itself.
They are bad at seeing how things such as culture, ideas, language and other things affect people and how they actually can pervert the things they claim to want to defend. They can't fight back against those things because well no physical coercion has be initiated and thus libertarians don't see the problem - 'just don't listen/watch/engage in it man, then it can't hurt you'
Truediltom did a good job at throwing the NAP out of the door back in 2017 - https://soundcloud.com/truediltom/on-the-non-aggression-principle
The non-aggression principle is useless in maintaining freedom or civilisation because it refuses to attack things that threaten it first. Libertarians are always on the defence not the offense
Who said, libertarians categorically oppose physical coercion?
Virtually every libertarian thinker and activist ever?
Oh let me guess, they're not real libertarians right?
Government coercion is opposed
CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES
Not coercion to enforce your own rights
You can't enforce your own rights without someone trying to violate them first
Yes
You won't go out of your way to punish the parasite before he even has a chance to
That's the problem
You're defensive when in reality you need to offensive to defend what you care about
Why do I need to be offensive, when I didn't get the problem in the first place, by defending myself?
Sowell once said that if you are unwilling to use force to defend civilisation then be prepared to accept barbarism. All power derives from the end of a gun, its just a case of who's pointing it at who
Yes
Because it removes the possibility of people violating your 'rights' in the long run
You don't need to be on the edge of your seat all the time worrying if someone is going to violate your NAP if you've already removed all those that would from your civilisation
So you want to aggress, to prevent possible future aggressions?