remember seth rich

end up in Hobbesian World

legitimacy usually is involved in some degree

Where we are all dead

no that's a violation of NAP bro

I don't follow it

but i can think if examples where the state was not very legitimate

but you do

but people couldn't stop it

and you iz ded

Who says the state follows the NAP

no the lolberts say this

Violators of the NAP lose its protection ofc

which you seem to be defending

the state is the NAP in practice

Defending who

The state has monopoly of legitimate aggression

the lolbert position as a rational option

Its rational

<:steflol:561214382181318656>

so every one else is under non aggression in theory

Just here the Rational Frame is attacked itself

then you don't understand humans or power

the NAP is the foundation of modern liberalism

I have seen Reason itself being under attack

and all liberalism, even

Liberalism still violates the NAP

no

yes

I mean you're not using the NAP in the way any ancap would, which is to just seek license for free-riding a mutually-defended commons.

you just have to think harder

k3k

So mental gym it

for example, racist remarks can be considered a violation of the NAP

Ironically

No

Not even close

they affect people's self-confidence, or could be theorized as such

that's force

forcing a person down

aggression