i could agree with that.... but it could be enforced more easily and also actually be codified into the foundations of actual valid, explicit social contracts too

so we can replace the foggy idea of a social contract with the NAP ... and then current contract laws/conventions, explicit legal contracts, etc are layered on top of that

What's so foggy about the current paradigm?

whats foggy about a non-existent contract? a contract that can literally change w/o you even knowing it?

Your proposition is to change one non-existent contract with another.

kind of self-evident

no, just a very vague idea with a more definitive one

The NAP as a single pillar is actually far more vague than you seem to think.

It's one of those concepts that works well on paper, but in practice...

the NAP is already pretty much illegal to break .... except for many "protected" classes of people like police currently etc who can freely break it w/ impunity

its not a pillar but a foundation

nor singular either. .... itd be like a software stack... the NAP the bottom most layer and everything else on top of it

Alright, let's disect 'protected classes'.

nobody says (at least not me) the NAP and ONLY the NAP ..... maybe some fringey elements would advocate for that ... fact is that ppl can agree to be governed in a private system of law

A private system of law...?

As in, like, laws that different classes can agree to on their own, independent of each other?

But how do you explain for this?

its getting late dude... im not going to get into this with you tonight.... but obviously government officials, politicians, police etc are most certainly a different class of people with all sorts of rights and privileges that us "ordinary" people dont have

yeah it kind of already happens with people doing business with each other from among countless jurisdictions

While I do think you have a partial point

like in california.... police are allowed to open carry ..... us plebians are not ... see how that class system is structured?

I think that point also proves the corruptability of any system you might put forward.

Take, for instance, the deletion of subpoenaed information in the Hillary campaign.

also.... police can legally threaten you with violence and actually initiation violence against your for "victimless crimes" but of course you cannot even defend yourself from being beaten in the face w/o being charge with "assault on police"

you cannot even TOUCH a police officer w/o being in danger of being charged w/ assault on a police officer

but they can man-handle you all they want.... that is still assault, you see. but they are a protected class

Is seriousposting in the shitpost channel considered next level shitposting?

I mean, if you're under arrest, and you attempt to bloody a cop's nose to get free...

that is not "equality" .... at all!

So if you've violated the NAP, and a security firm comes for you

How is that any different?

depends if youre under arrent for legitimate reasons.... you can be falsely arrested too

its not.... they would be in the right to detain you

Do you think that laws should only be considered violated once there's a victim, not enforced to prevent victims?

bcuz they would be responding to a violation of the NAP in the first place, so they cannot simultaneously commit it in defense

[moved to <#463068752725016579> thread]

listen to this interview

no victim, no crime 😉

So you buy cocaine and snort it up

get arrested.