Message from @Doshin
Discord ID: 497168923444117515
yeah but who decides how much is enough?
thats is impossible to answer
Forced morality is not morality.
which is why im conflicted and why we vote for that person
If you can't know, then its an infinite hole
its not a moral argument
Whatever security one needs can be accomplished through insurance.
i think its immoral but required
I'm all for "necessary evil" but you need a limit
Else it will grow more
and you get current things
well you tax things which cause harm and violate the NAP
i guess
of course drawing the lines is so hard
You're into NAP, but still argue for taxes?
i have heard of it
i dont necessarily follow it
Well ...
NAP is for suckers who wanna dream as hard as the socialists and communists
yeah i can agree its very idealistic
It's not an economic model, it's a system of morality.
NAP is too far
A republican government is necessary
A Jeffersonian government is necessary
if you are into NAP but are being exploited by force i think you have to break the NAP to stay alive
Just because false convictions exist doesn't mean you don't try your best at due process.
Ideals will always be out of reach. You can orientate yourself towards a star without reaching it.
Ideals are something to strive for,
Not to implement
oh fuck my eye hurts
what's going on?
brb
so... what NAP are you folks talking about
but if you strive for ideals cant that result in "the ends justify the means" cancer
the Ancap one i think?
is there another kind?
cause it's very confusing in contexts of Network Access Protection
idk ive only heard it mentioned by stefan moleneux
lol
NAP = Non-aggression Pact
ah
basically, we both agree not to attack each other