When the Non-Aggression Principle is violated, morality does not crack—it collapses.
What remains is not justice, but naked power.
It is not a law within morality—
it is the ground from which morality can arise.
#NAP
I will start with ethics and liberty, because I really Like the philosophical part and want to seek the truth. And then hopefully practice low time preference with MES!
You make me excited to read Ethics of Liberty ✨ which do you Like/recommend more, MES or Ethics of Liberty from Rothbard?
Do Atlas shrugs ;)
“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
#atlasshrugged
Grüße nach DE :D
You’ll find no trucks outside our valley, Miss Taggart,” said the man. “That cigarette was made here—and you can’t buy them for paper money. Only [Bitcoin].
Counter-Economy, maybe we need exclusive Products which can only be paid in Bitcoin.
#bitcoinonly #atlasshrugged
Do you do this kind of stuff full time?
Transferring GOLD vs transferring BITCOIN https://video.nostr.build/28c5731a412bb9088131913a6be93bb1a2b604c7b8d511058ac261b5935e8247.mp4
To be fair, the comparison would be better with on-chain Bitcoin or not?
“If you claim you're only allowed to fight back in kind, sure, maybe that is a valid argument. I am not sure whether that is defensible for all rights. In some cases, your attacker might be at an inherent advantage. That would be a good reason to fight back in whichever way is to your benefit.”
Maybe I did misinterpret, but it sounded to me, that only self defense ist not sufficient for you.
No I’m not. But if you are interested in those kind auf thoughts, look at Mises.org and people like Rothbard and Hoppe
I disagree.
But as long as you don’t force communism on people who don’t want it, and accept that others want live under capitalism, everybody is happy!
If you choose to proactively defend your rights and use force, you must be extremely careful. Because by doing so, you’re almost always risking becoming the aggressor yourself—violating someone else’s negative rights.
So you’d have to be absolutely certain that you can later prove, beyond doubt, that it was a legitimate act of self-defense. And that’s objectively very hard to do.
If you can’t prove it, then you’re not the victim—you are the aggressor, and you’d be fully responsible for the harm caused.
But I guess this is no difference to today. Except for the government for example, who is allowed and breaks negative rights daily
You’re absolutely right that in some cases the aggressor has the advantage and may successfully violate someone’s rights. But that’s also exactly what happens now—in our current system, or even under the welfare capitalism you originally brought up.
In a libertarian framework, a person could voluntarily contract with a defense or insurance service, which would then act on their behalf. The burden would be on that service to prove in front of a neutral arbitrator that a rights violation occurred and to hold the aggressor accountable.
Functionally, this is not so different from how justice works today—but the key difference is: in this system, there’s no central institution (like the state) that continuously and systematically violates negative rights. That’s the fundamental point: both systems deal with violations, but only one claims the right to violate by default.
There is no hidden assumption. Any use of violence (except in defense against an aggressor) is a violation of human rights.
When confronted with aggressors, it is necessary to defend yourself. This can be done by defending yourself directly or voluntarily agreeing to a defensive service.
I believe you misunderstood my position, as I’m not claiming that violence is “worse” than any other human rights violation. Rather, the key point is that violence is always a violation of negative rights, which makes it inherently illegitimate, except in self-defense. This is where I see the contradiction in your stance: if you use violence to achieve another human right, you are violating another person’s right in the process. This creates an inherent contradiction in the approach.
Lastly, I want to clarify that I am not casually throwing around terms like ‘libertarian.’ I have carefully defended my position and believe I understand the underlying principles. I’m not attempting to impose my views on you, just sharing what I believe is a sound moral stance.