>"But we don't have race specific abortions laws!"
...
@caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul That's because there is only one true law and you don't need a state to enforce it.
CatSoc 
@CatLord @caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul The NAP is the logical conclusion that all forms of aggression outside of self-defense are unjustified. Ethics can be explained objectively using logic. Just watch this video if you want to know more.
>what if my neighbour is polluting
>what if he is doing something disgusting in view of children but still on his property
>what if he is clearly planning aggression but hasn't realised it yet
Et cetera. The most compelling general formulation, to the average man, is this, however: What if he's an evil freak who deserves to die but skirts the bounds of the NAP in a legalistic fashion?
The answer to all of this is to abandon the NAP and accept natural human hierarchy, authority, moral imposition, and social regulation and the violence that comes with that. Contrary to what libertarians depict, this doesn't involve extreme repression and abuse. It's the natural state of man; people expect it and are happier this way.
@CatLord @caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul
>what if my neighbour is polluting
Pollution spreading to other properties violates the NAP.
>what if he is doing something disgusting in view of children but still on his property
Physical removal.
>what if he is clearly planning aggression but hasn't realised it yet
Literally this argument is what governments use to justify mass surveillance on it's citizens. Anyway, once he approaches your property with a firearm, you can shot at him.
Yeah after years of fucking discussion this was decided lmao. I'm familiar with the history of this and perhaps you aren't.
>Physical removal.
Hoppean cope. Violation of the NAP
>Anyway, once he approaches your property with a firearm, you can shot at him.
He has prepared by the time you are legally allowed (according to the NAP) to react. Too late.
You want to keep going with different scenarios? This is usually what happens in these arguments.
@CatLord @caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul Physical removal means that the neighbors will shun him (deny him/her service, employment, rent, mutual aid, etc). He will have no choice but to move.
He's self-sufficient and stays. He doesn't move. He stays and keeps doing disgusting shit in front of your children. They're afraid to go outside now. The situation is getting worse. How do you deal with it?
@CatLord @caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul Build a fence around your yard that you can't see through.
@CatLord @caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul Move somewhere else.
@CatLord @caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul Kill him. If he's stalking you, then he's clearly forcing your children to see it which is an act of aggression.
Until you got to the correct answer, you:
>shunned him
>built a massive fence on your property
>moved fucking house
all the while your children were terrified. This is why libertarianism is fucking dumb. The correct answer was always to either gather round the community and beat him, or kill him. The correct answer was always violence.
@CatLord @caekislove @branman65 @Godcast @jetzkrieg @RealRaul Now, it's time for you statists to explain how to get rid of the shadow government and make sure that the government actually serves the people.
