i own this miles-long forest on the other side of the country. if you traverse over it you are violating the non-aggression principle.
people who live near the forest and need to use it for resources:
okay...do we have to voluntarily accept this scenario where you arbitrarily own this natural resource, or are you going to utilize a private dispute-settling service to have bounty hunters come and kick our asses if we don't move?
if you don't voluntarily accept my voluntary ownership over this swath of land i'm not using, then yes, i'm gonna call up my private defense force to aggressively remove you on account of your aggression. it's okay though because this defense force is not a coercive state and you can always go somewhere else.
by the rules of the non-aggression principle, no libertarian has the right to get mad at you if a car tries to fuck with you at a protest and you respond by smashing in the windshield and slashing the tires, imo
I’m sick of Libertarians and Ancaps telling me that foreigners have a right to my homeland because something something non-aggression principle. It’s almost as annoying as Leftists telling me “this is for colonialism”.
How can libertarianism pretend to be an objective philosophy while always resorting to morally relative positions about the individual, voluntary exchange, private property, and contractual agreement? The non aggression principle itself is very subjective since I can't seem to find a libertarian that can objectively define what aggression means besides the obvious things like stealing property and hitting people. If the basis for aggression is determined by volition, that's subjective.
The material universe exists.
Humans exist in that universe.
Humans are self aware.
Humans own themselves.
Humans have agency.
Humans are subject to moral judgements.
Humans own the results of their actions.
Humans own property.
To initiate physical violence or coercion is to violate a person’s property.
To violate a person’s property is to reject their agency and personhood.
IS-OUGHT JUMP INCOMING
Humans ought to have their agency and personhood respected.
BACK TO THE IS
To reject any of my premises is to render any discussion about the nature of morality as pointless, because it is to assert that humans do not really exist, or that humans bear no responsibility for their actions. In which case there is no morality and I’ll just enforce my own morals with violence anyway. Subjective morality is a contradiction in terms.
Any other alternative is simply illogical and not worth entertaining.
People who say “You don’t have the right to break the law.” are really saying “If the government declares that you don’t have the right to do something, I’ll unquestioningly believe them.”. Ironically, those people usually call themselves “anti-government” and “pro-freedom”.
Nyabinghi is the oldest of the mansions of Rastafari. These Rastafari are the strictest out of the six or so major groups. They pledge “love to all human beings”, and do not believe in violence, because they believe that only Jah has the right to destroy. They make this pledge because of the power of words, believing that only when all of Jah’s children make the pledge together, the oppressors will be destroyed. In addition, they are often non-violent or follow the non aggression principle.
Nyabinghi was a legendary Ugandan/Rwandan tribe queen, who was said to have possessed a Ugandan woman named muhumusa in the 19th century. Muhumusa inspired a movement, rebelling against African colonial authorities. Though she was captured in 1913, alleged possessions by Nyabinghi continued (mostly afflicting women). Bloodline of the true Nyabinghi warriors rightfully settled in the heart of Dzimba dze Mabwe now known as Zimbabwe.
The Nyabinghi resistance inspired a number of Jamaican Rastas, who incorporated what are known as Nyabinghi chants (also binghi) into their celebrations (groundations). The rhythms of these chants were eventually an influence of popular ska,rocksteady and reggae music. Three kinds of drums are used in Nyabinghi music: bass, funds and keteh. The keteh plays an impoverished syncopation, the funde plays a regular one-two beat and the bass drum strikes loudly on the first beat, and softly on the third (of four) beat. Count Ossie was the first to record nyabinghi, and he helped to establish and maintain Rasta culture.
What exactly is the purpose of taking away voting rights from felons?
The only reason I can think of is that the government wants to be able to pass bad laws without anyone stopping them. The government declares a completely victimless action as a felony, then disproportionately targets oppressed demographics when enforcing the law. The people who have been arrested for that victimless action are the only ones who know firsthand how unjust the law is, and stopping felons from voting silences them so the unjust law has less opposition.
Even if the crime actually has a victim, what’s wrong with allowing them to vote? Allowing murderers and rapists to vote will not cause murder and rape to become legal. Besides, for every violent criminal who can’t vote because of a felony conviction, there are dozens who can still vote because they haven’t been caught yet.
Land ownership should be related to the use of it and participation in it. Absentee land ownership, especially when it is then rented out to people, is unjust because you just end up profiting off of the necessity of someone else; basically earning while doing nothing to get it, with rent (and surplus in a workplace setting) flowing up to you simply because you arbitrarily own something. Leftists aren’t opposed to you owning personal property, including a home of your own, but we are opposed to you arbitrarily owning swaths of land and productive property that other people need to utilize to survive.
(Besides, how do you enforce absentee property rights if not with a state and a police force to back up your claim to it? What gives you a right to land you yourself are not directly utilizing? Why should you be able to own resources and land that a community NEEDS? That’s right – it’s all arbitrary bullshit that maintains status quo power dynamics, arbitrary bullshit that requires “big government” to legitimize it.)
You got a small farm of your own that you tend to by yourself? Awesome! You have miles of farmland that requires hundreds of workers to tend to it, who you in turn sap surplus and/or rent from? Now we’re slipping back into feudalism/capitalism. Basically, leftists argue that government isn’t required to “make people equal” (as is complained of leftists by reactionaries); people already are equal, and a legal entity (the state, muh NAP, etc) that legitimizes absentee land ownership and autocratic/hierarchical production relations is an entity that MAKES people UNequal, predicated on an unjust basis of propertarian ownership. The history of class societies in a nutshell: the ruling class owns society’s shit, the dominated class works to produce that shit and pays to live in that shit because the shit is recognized as being owned by the ruling class (even though the dominated class created it).