That’s 3 months of my life stolen from me because an abuser manipulated the system.

This is what finally after years of being a libertarian leaning statist and wanting to fix government pushed me to realizing no one can be trusted with that power. After I got out of there I was a minarchist, as soon as I found out about the NAP I became an anarchist.

So fuck you government for putting me and so many other people through this hell.

Y'all: *cricket noises*

Me: *gets drunk and posts about how bananas are disgusting and makes weird rants in the tags on things I reblog*

People who reject the NAP cannot invoke the protections of the NAP. 

Communists reject the NAP.  

Communists cannot invoke the protections of the NAP.  

This sounds reasonable, and is structurally valid insofar as the rules of logic go.  

The flaw to this argument is not in that communists reject the NAP, because they obviously do.  

The flaw to this argument is that communists cannot invoke the protections of the NAP, because they technically can.  

So long as a person is not aggressing, violence cannot be justly utilized against them.  Aggression, as we recall, is the infringement of a person’s life or property without consent.  

My failure was that I was conflating the call for aggression, as aggression in and of itself.  

Therefore in my mind, there was no difference between Person A who stole from me, and Person B who asked someone (such as Person A) to steal from me.  

The difference is, Person A actually stole from me, and Person B did not.  

According to my original argument, both persons would be guilty of aggression insofar as they failed to respect my absolute right to my property.  But in reality, only Person A aggressed; Person B just talked.  

Interestingly, this has some fun implications for the “support the troops” folks who think the commanders of the military and police issue unjust orders but the rank-and-file are smol pwecious babbies “just following orders”.  If the order is unjust and the infantry obey, then according to my new argument, the infantry are far more guilty than the commanders.  The commanders, in theory, just talk.  The infantry are the ones pulling the trigger, killing innocents and stealing property.  

Clearly, this doesn’t feel right: it seems that people who issue unjust orders should face some kind of justice for saying “kill that person, oppress these people”, more so than the people who actually carried out those orders.  

This was a significant point of contention in the original discourse for the original argument as well: the rank-and-file communists didn’t have the “expectation” for orders to be obeyed; politicians and military/police officers do, and therefore commanders should be liable in a way that infantry are not, or are significantly less liable.  

I believe that line of thought is statist indoctrination.  It presumes that the officers are a legitimate source of authority.  They are not.  They possess a monopoly on legal force, but their immoral use of that force makes them illegitimate as a source of authority.  And I have already stated my belief that the acquisition of power--that is, the expectation to be obeyed--is arbitrary, which I know was contested but whatever that argument was failed to convince me, and since I deleted I can’t recall or reference it. 

All that aside...  

Communists who are not aggressing cannot be the targets of justified force (self defense), not because communism is protected thought, but because they are not violating the NAP, even when advocating for the state to violate the NAP on their behalf.  

And this is where and why I was wrong: advocating for NAP violations is not inherently a NAP violation, because talking about or even actively planning to violate your life or property is not the same thing as actually violating of your life or property.  

(Now you can set rules on your property to the tune of “thou shalt not plan theft on my property” and because you own the property, you may lawfully evict someone you find to be planning theft on your property even if you are not the target of the planned theft, because there is no such thing as freedom of speech or thought on your property, and that was the point Hoppe was making in “there can be no tolerance”.  You simply cannot evict someone from their property for planning a theft, which was what I was arguing, and why I was incorrect.)

This is how you actually argue, by the way.  Not calling someone a fascist or a fed just because the conclusion of an argument runs afoul of your personal feelings on the issue.  You have actually point out where someone went wrong and why in order for them to take your point seriously and reconsider their argument.  

But since you didn’t do that with me, and instead you immediately descended to childish insults... are you really my friends, and are you really good defenders of liberty?  

I’ll fess up to being wrong about the concept of shooting communists on sight.  

But what I won’t do is grovel about it to people who fucking know better, but call me a fed or a fascist.  That’s why I deleted.  I didn’t delete because I was wrong: I deleted because I was being strawmanned by fuckwits who should have known better, but took the low road of cheap insults rather than actually testing my reasoning.  And it was no longer worth my time to engage you all, and it continues to not be worth my time, which is why I won’t be following any of you or giving a fuck about this blog in the slightest, unlike the true labor of love that was my prior account.  

Either engage my logic (which was, if you bother to recall, that people who explicitly reject the NAP cannot be protected by it) or shut the fuck up.  

And also leave my girlfriend out of this.  If you have a problem with me, you have a problem with me, not her.  You’re a real credit to the liberty movement by spamming her anons asking if she’s still with me.  After all, everyone knows the only way into heaven is virtue-signalling to the point of harassing people tangentially related to the wrongthinker.  

But yeah, I’ll remember the only way to remain in the good graces of the ancaps is to be in perfect lockstep with each other, or else you get called a fed.  And that’s why I’m not gonna come back into the fold.  I’m better off on my own because you’re just as toxic and perfectionist as everyone else.