Taking things from white people

[Anti Federalist]

 

[TheTexan]

They bring such a rich culture

 

[unknown]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[PAF]

One of these days they're going to run into the wrong people.

African Tribe VS Hare Krishna? Where?! When?! I wanna see!

 

[Anti Federalist]

One of these days they're going to run into the wrong people.

African Tribe VS Hare Krishna? Where?! When?! I wanna see!

My question was, regarding the African witch doctors, how do you apply the NAP in that case?

If you're an atheist then I guess it's just a question of invasion of space and property rights.

But if you are a Christian, let's say, and truly do believe what Scripture says about evil spirits and dark forces at work in the world, doesn't that take that to another level?

 

[PAF]

My question was, regarding the African witch doctors, how do you apply the NAP in that case?

If you're an atheist then I guess it's just a question of invasion of space and property rights.

1st Amendment applies. NAP takes care of property rights

But if you are a Christian, let's say, and truly do believe what Scripture says about evil spirits and dark forces at work in the world, doesn't that take that to another level?

Nope. My above statement still applies. If/because I am Christian, I don't want to have to stand there at the Pearly Gates holding up the line to explain why I was hypocritical toward/against God's young'uns.

Which makes me wonder: I wonder if God has defined and segregated areas up in heaven for all of the different color souls. Blackies to the left, whities go right. You're chink so get in the Buddha line way over there And if there is, I want weekends down in Purgatory so I can let loose once in a while

Wait, you're Mexican-Catholic and have a Mother Mary in your front yard? Hold on a sec, I need to consult with one of the other Saints

 

[TheTexan]

But if you are a Christian, let's say, and truly do believe what Scripture says about evil spirits and dark forces at work in the world, doesn't that take that to another level?

Seems to me that if you honestly believe it to be "aggression", then you can respond with some proportionate amount of self defense.

You'd be fully justified in holding up the cross and perform an exorcism incantation against the aforementioned evil spirits

 

[Anti Federalist]

Seems to me that if you honestly believe it to be "aggression", then you can respond with some proportionate amount of self defense.

You'd be fully justified in holding up the cross and perform an exorcism incantation against the aforementioned evil spirits

Kind of where I was going with that, exactly.

 

[nikcers]

They used to put crosses on their swords for good reason.

 

[PAF]

Kind of where I was going with that, exactly.

While true and I agree, mine didn't fit the narrative?

 

[Occam's Banana]

My question was, regarding the African witch doctors, how do you apply the NAP in that case?

If you're an atheist then I guess it's just a question of invasion of space and property rights.

But if you are a Christian, let's say, and truly do believe what Scripture says about evil spirits and dark forces at work in the world, doesn't that take that to another level?

That's a question that must be addressed by any general socio-political legal theory (not just NAP-based libertarian theory). For example, what's the answer under current UK or US law (neither of which is NAP-based)? Or what's the answer under the relevant African tribal law? And so forth, for any other historical, present, or proposed legal regimes one might care to consider.

The libertarian NAP is just a "razor" for dividing actions into one of two categories: (1) "actions that permit the application of retaliatory force", or (2) "not (1)". But every socio-political "ism" can be considered to have a "NAP" of some kind (whether it's called that or not). The crux of the differences between socio-political legal systems consists in how they disparately define (an act of) "aggression". For example, under state-socialism's "NAP", private (i.e., non-state) ownership of capital property is a NAP violation, as it is considered to be an exploitative act of "aggression" against the proletariat (so under state socialism, one can be permitted to own a toothbrush, but not a toothbrush factory).

As for the answer to your question with respect to the libertarian NAP in particular, the answer depends upon whether voodoo curses can be considered as uses of force [1] in a legal sense. I do not think they can. NAP-based libertarian theory is (and should remain) limited and "thin". It is a legal theory concerned with discerning (im)permissible uses of physical or material(istic) force, and that is all. It is not a "theory of everything", and while it does run parallel (sometimes closely, sometimes not) to moral theory, neither moral nor spiritual theory is properly within its purview. Thus, "voodoo curses" (which involve spiritual force, if any at all) fall outside the bailiwick of the NAP - as does any response to t hem (unless a response involves the initiation of physical/material force).

Personally, I like TheTexan's suggestion of fighting spiritual fire with spiritual fire:

Seems to me that if you honestly believe it to be "aggression", then you can respond with some proportionate amount of self defense.

You'd be fully justified in holding up the cross and perform an exorcism incantation against the aforementioned evil spirits

[1] And even if so, note that uses of force are not necessarily "aggressive". For example, what about "retaliatory" voodoo curses? If you initiate force against me by walking up and punching me in the face, am I permitted to "voodoo curse" you back in defensive or punitive retaliation?

 

[nikcers]

That's a question that must be addressed by any general socio-political legal theory (not just NAP-based libertarian theory). For example, what's the answer under current UK or US law (neither of which is NAP-based)? Or what's the answer under the relevant African tribal law? And so forth, for any other historical, present, or proposed legal regimes one might care to consider.

The libertarian NAP is just a "razor" for dividing actions into one of two categories: (1) "actions that permit the application of retaliatory force", or (2) "not (1)". But every socio-political "ism" can be considered to have a "NAP" of some kind (whether it's called that or not). The crux of the differences between socio-political legal systems consists in how they disparately define (an act of) "aggression". For example, under state-socialism's "NAP", private (i.e., non-state) ownership of capital property is a NAP violation, as it is considered to be an exploitative act of "aggression" against the proletariat (so under state socialism, one can be permitted to own a toothbrush, but not a toothbrush factory).

As for the answer to your question with respect to the libertarian NAP in particular, the answer depends upon whether voodoo curses can be considered as uses of force [1] in a legal sense. I do not think they can. NAP-based libertarian theory is (and should remain) limited and "thin". It is a legal theory concerned with discerning (im)permissible uses of physical or material(istic) force, and that is all. It is not a "theory of everything", and while it does run parallel (sometimes closely, sometimes not) to moral theory, neither moral nor spiritual theory is properly within its purview. Thus, "voodoo curses" (which involve spiritual force, if any at all) fall outside the bailiwick of the NAP - as does any response to them.

Personally, I like TheTexan's suggestion of fighting spiritual fire with spiritual fire:

​

[1] And even if so, note that uses of force are not necessarily "aggressive". For example, what about "retaliatory" voodoo curses? If you initiate force against me by walking up and punching me in the face, am I permitted to "voodoo curse" you back in defensive or punitive retaliation? If not, why not?

The prevailing argument of the world today is they get to punch you for free because they tell a story that they get to do that.

 

[RJB]

What the hell? That looks like some 1950s B horror movie with a bunch of white actors in blackface portraying savages in the unexplored dark continent. Clips of that movie would be shown on an MSNBC documentary to show how the evil white man engaged in horrible and untrue stereotypes of our African brothers and sisters.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[PAF]

It's even more wild when things are taken completely out of context.


[Disclaimer: I don't support or reject what is in the article. I am providing this as informational only.]

Only Immigrants Can Reverse America’s Baby Bust​

​

Asia’s aging societies show that other well-meaning policies simply can’t boost birth rates enough.​

​

In 2018, American women gave birth to the fewest number of children since 1986, according to U.S. government data released last week. The decline since 2007, when a record 4.2 million children were born, has been precipitous. Births have declined every year since then but one, falling to 3.8 million. That amounts to a fertility rate of 1.7 children per American woman in her lifetime -- well below the rate of 2.1 necessary to maintain a stable population.​

​

The decline poses a long-term problem for an aging country in which more and more citizens are dependent upon Social Security, government healthcare and a shrinking number of workers to fund both. But the U.S. is hardly unique. For three decades, Asia's most successful economies have experimented with a range of policies to reverse far more serious declines in fertility. What they've learned is that the only sure way to reverse the trend is to do what the U.S. has historically done better than virtually any other nation on earth: accept immigrants."​

 

[TheTexan]

The decline poses a long-term problem for an aging country in which more and more citizens are dependent upon Social Security, government healthcare and a shrinking number of workers to fund both. But the U.S. is hardly unique. For three decades, Asia's most successful economies have experimented with a range of policies to reverse far more serious declines in fertility. What they've learned is that the only sure way to reverse the trend is to do what the U.S. has historically done better than virtually any other nation on earth: accept immigrants."

Hey we've got this giant pyramid scheme that will eventually fail, let's solve the problem by making the giant pyramid scheme even bigger with even more immigrants!!

That'll really solve the problem!!

Genius solution