Okay, I think I’d like to wrap up our discussion, but I really enjoyed it!
To answer your point:
I believe the principle I’m advocating (which is just classic libertarian thought) still stands and remains correct: Don’t initiate violence. Even though there may be some cases where the answer isn’t immediately clear, the issue lies in our lack of understanding or consideration, not in the principle itself. I’m confident that more experienced and thoughtful people have already addressed these complexities.
Not sure if I get you right but:
the right to privacy is a negative right, and you have the freedom to protect it without needing to justify yourself. If you don’t want to share something or keep it private, that’s your right, and nobody should force you to reveal it. If someone tries to force you to give up your privacy, they’re the aggressor and are committing an act of coercion or violence. The principle is simple: ‘Leave me alone.’ Governments often violate this right, but if your privacy is attacked, you’re the one in the right, and the aggressor is the one at fault.
Honestly, i don’t have a clear opinion on that yet. You raise good points — not all harm is physical. Things like stalking or identity fraud clearly violate negative rights.
Other cases, like lies or persistent annoyance, are more ambiguous.
In such cases, I think neutral judgment is needed to decide if someone’s rights were actually violated.
But overall, I believe restrictions should only apply when there’s clear force or fraud — that’s what best protects both freedom and fairness.
“there are a lot of ways in which you can make someone's life miserable without resorting to violence.”
- can you give one/two example(s)?
“I do think those rights should be protected.”
- I agree with all the negative rights. Do you have examples, which specific right comes to your mind, which you think is not protected in my viewpoint?
Can you be more precise and give an example? But I guess we will turn circles.
Short: the only restriction you need, is against violence
I don’t reject protection — I reject imposed protection through coercion.
Rights don’t require force to exist. They require that others don’t initiate force. That’s the essence of negative rights: leave others in peace.
Humane expectations can only be fulfilled through voluntary action. As soon as you force someone to fulfill them, they stop being humane — and become control.
But those negative rights can and must be defended, in worst case through defense violence.
I don’t claim to know exactly how it would work in practice. But I believe it’s true — because the conclusion follows logically from a single moral premise: that all forms of initiated violence are wrong.
That’s a fair concern — and I appreciate the clarification.
The question is valid: how do we protect peaceful people from those who are not?
But here’s the key difference: the presence of a coercive authority doesn’t eliminate the danger — it centralizes and legitimizes it. History shows us that the greatest threats to civilization have come through the mechanisms of state power, not in its absence.
Voluntary cooperation, community defense, and decentralized accountability are not perfect — but coercive systems aren’t either. In fact, they often make things far worse.
Relying on violence to prevent violence only entrenches the cycle. I believe the solution lies in responsibility, not force.
Also I think, you can only start by yourself. So i try to live accordingly, and clearly state my position to maybe inspire others.
Precisely because I reject the use of violence against peaceful individuals, I also reject and condemn regimes like the Nazis in the strongest terms.
It wasn’t the absence of coercion that led to those crimes, but the total loss of individual rights under an all-powerful state. That’s exactly what I oppose.
I understand your feelings. But the only alternative then is, to force somebody else to provide you with what you want, through violence.
If you can’t take care of yourself, that is not maintainable, as you need others. Free trade and cooperation is a win-win, even for “inferior” people. (Max talked about that in one podcast). Do you want to make it moral and rightful, to get what you want/need by force? This seems not maintainable to me
Who defines basic necessity? Which human rights?
But short: By yourself or voluntary help
Actually it’s quite the opposite. Let’s invert my statement:
If capitalism is considered immoral and socialism moral, then coercion is not just acceptable — it’s necessary. True justice requires using force to redistribute, even against the will of the individual.
This is newspeak
You want to balance violence, saying a little bit is good? That’s not a spectrum for me; to me, freedom is the absence of violence and coercion. I am extreme on non active violence…
If socialism is considered moral and capitalism immoral, then coercion becomes a virtue — and violence against the peaceful becomes justified.
nostr:npub1klkk3vrzme455yh9rl2jshq7rc8dpegj3ndf82c3ks2sk40dxt7qulx3vt
politics is noise
Money… I want to spend some money. Do you know places in cologne, where one can spend sats? (Best coffee 😍)
Thanks for the work!!
