Quote from: pine on March 01, 2012, 07:29 pmQuote from: jackthetripper on March 01, 2012, 06:17 pmQuoteHe *remembered* last month? WTF!Shoot him in the head. Works for me :)Lolol we're supposed to be better, more sophisticated than our street-pushing brethren? That's funny Pine :) I robbed a bank, got locked up and just did 6 years for it. Now whatever I do, I'm holding court on the streets if I get jammed up again.Wait, you are a paralegal *and* a recently released bank robber? Only one of those can be true! Wat!Obviously my 'shoot him in the head' was a joke. I like to overreact sometimes for dramatic affect, I hope that was clear.I might be a capitalist, but I'm not an anarchist (nor pro-statist, although technically everybody who isn't an anarchist is a statist to a greater or lesser extent), and I don't agree with the non-aggression principle at all.I expand on this, because most people here seem to think NAP will put them on a higher moral position than the Government, which may be true, but I feel it is pointless exercise in philosophical thinking. Being perpetually in a position of 'defense' could completely compromise you. Imagine the Jews adopting NAP in Nazi Germany, just how far do you imagine that would have gotten them?I see a *less* violent future with organizations like the Silk Road popping up, because of the virtual interface and because of practical 'soft power' systems like buyer feedback, reputation systems, financial services like escrow etc keeping people on their toes and in line. Actually we're simply availing ourselves of systems the white market has had for centuries, but we couldn't get widespread access to until now.That doesn't mean that violence is suddenly off the table. Violence is simply the continuation of negotiations once diplomatic means are exhausted. It is cruel and terrible with physical and psychological consequences, which is why it's usually a last resort. But all things exist for reasons, and violence too has a reason. We don't like death from old age either, but it clearly has a function or it wouldn't exist. Again, we avoid it if at all possible, but it is inevitably out there.The State has a monopoly on violence, and this is good thing because it reduces violence overall. I'm sure anaracho47 will disagree, but tribes of hunter/gatherers in the past did have an anarchist-like society, and they were incredibly violent times because there was no central strong power to prevent the logic of M.A.D from making them launch preemptive attacks on each other out of fear. But if the State oversteps the mark, it is acceptable to begin a war against them. Otherwise how could we in the West feel empathy for Assad's victims in Syria? If we believed only the State has that authority, then we would think of the dead civilians as terrorists only. Clearly we must believe it is possible for a State to also be a terrorist. So offensive aggression can have validity if it's just preemptive defense.Game Theory says Tit for Tat works. Strike once asked, who watches the watchmen? And he said it was he himself, which is the right answer. It is the obligation of every citizen, whether they be pacifistic or not to question the System if it appears to be behaving in cruel or unusual ways.lol you knew I was coming after this ;)I would suggest you do your reading up on the "wild west" which is the best example of a close-to-anarchist society in recent history that was based on individualist principles similar to the NAP.As to your Jews in Germany remark, I don't think that holds a drop of water. Living by the NAP means you make sure you are able to defend yourself against violence or threats thereof. I have ready many accounts, outside of the outright weapons bans of the Hitler regime (these measures were present in ALL of the dozens of major genocides in the 20th century), where the Jewish people were extremely passive. They were such in number that they could have overtaken the initial forces of sadists coming to herd them off by picking up lamps and broom handles and overpowering them and stealing their guns. They didn't act in defense. The NAP is very strongly in favor of strong defense, especially since owning an inanimate object (like a high-powered assault rifle and anti-personnel rounds) doesn't violate the NAP. It is only in statist societies where massive genocides have occurred - you have to have a centralized, monopolized group of violent people and a disarmed population for it to even be a possibility.This is why I laugh whenever anyone says it's possible the U.S. could be invaded. There are more guns in private hands in the United States than the entire population of the country. It would be a suicide attempt for anyone, even the U.S.'s own government, to attempt to declare all-out war on the American people. That is the thin veil of protection that the US population has against Hitler 2.0.