Guy # 2: What if the animal was violating the NAP?
Guy #1: The animals can’t understand the NAP so you can’t kill them for not following it. Even if a creature doesn’t understand the NAP, doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to them. For example, killing a human baby would definitely go against the NAP.
Guy #3: I wonder if I can bait animals into violating the NAP so I can hunt them 🤔.
Guy #4: Let’s teach English and the NAP to the animals
Imagine a sit-com of just different types of libertarians and anarchists trying to live in the same town and adjust to each other. There will be a liberal who thinks he is part of the team but he is not.
I’d have some respect for a guy like that, of course it’d never happen because lolbertarians are treatlerite hogs who apply their own principles inconsistently in a matter that suits them.
It’d necessitate a questioning of their own beliefs too, because the continued existence of a practice like factory farming doesn’t reflect well on the Free Market.
Back when I used to debate with libertarians, the more consistent among them did acknowledge the need for a legal system that would restrict the “rights” of individuals to violate the NAP and to enforce private property rights.
Some of the more radical libertarians would take this as betrayal, while the white supremacists didn’t give a shit about philosophical debates and instead just wanted to segregate themselves from minorities (and they believed that minorities would die out without welfare).
Funny how it’s always just about your individual choice to eat meat and the animals being killed don’t factor into the equation.
I’m imagining a libertarian dude brother who defends animal rights by invoking the NAP.
Would be a funny type a guy. If any of these reddit liberals were consistent in their own liberalism they would be vegans at the bare minimum.
a debate between that guy and a “you can kill and eat specific animals if they tried to kill you” guy would send me
Guy #1: Don’t eat animals! It violates the NAP!
Guy # 2: What if the animal was violating the NAP?
Guy #1: The animals can’t understand the NAP so you can’t kill them for not following it. Even if a creature doesn’t understand the NAP, doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to them. For example, killing a human baby would definitely go against the NAP.
Guy #3: I wonder if I can bait animals into violating the NAP so I can hunt them 🤔.
Guy #4: Let’s teach English and the NAP to the animals
Imagine a sit-com of just different types of libertarians and anarchists trying to live in the same town and adjust to each other. There will be a liberal who thinks he is part of the team but he is not.
I’d have some respect for a guy like that, of course it’d never happen because lolbertarians are treatlerite hogs who apply their own principles inconsistently in a matter that suits them.
It’d necessitate a questioning of their own beliefs too, because the continued existence of a practice like factory farming doesn’t reflect well on the Free Market.
Back when I used to debate with libertarians, the more consistent among them did acknowledge the need for a legal system that would restrict the “rights” of individuals to violate the NAP and to enforce private property rights.
Some of the more radical libertarians would take this as betrayal, while the white supremacists didn’t give a shit about philosophical debates and instead just wanted to segregate themselves from minorities (and they believed that minorities would die out without welfare).
It was all very funny looking back on it.