Your question will be to conflate Liberalism and Marxism, then ask me a question about Liberalism, which I would affiliate with because Libertarians are from Liberal thought. But maybe I'm giving you too much credit (despite the fact that Marxism is illiberal). Maybe you'll ask me something truly retarded.
White Nationalists are literally just punk-ass National Socialists. Lesser versions of NatSocs. Imagine admitting you're a Socialist.
Cool, you did exactly what I thought you would do.
I'll answer with a follow-up question.
What do you think I should do to you?
As far as I'm concerned, the Marxists and National Socialists have to be treated in exactly the same way. Both of you are hell bent on the extermination of all dissent, individualism, property rights, privacy, and freedom. You want to accomplish this with unrestrained violence and genocide. But, the non-aggression principle suggests that I should defend myself only when attacked... pre-meditated defense doesn't really exist since there's no imminence, and "collective self-defense" flies in the face of individualism. But there can be no denying that the Socialists are always hell bent on a conspiracy to destroy everything we have and stand for.
Since you are both dedicated to our deaths in this conspiracy; you are an enemy faction hell bent on violence. Is that not imminence? Can an individual Socialist not be considered a threat, but two are (by definition) a threat? Do we stop you from meeting each other at all? Do we need to have a mandatory value standard? If you don't agree to the NAP, do you need to be physically removed? Is it appropriate to stop you ahead of time? What force needs to be used to stop you from destroying the very society we work for? What do I need to do to stop you from raping and murdering my wife and children in front of me, since you will do it given the first opportunity. Since you're equally the same threat, because you are the same people... what I do to the Marxist, is what I must do to you. No exceptions. A Liberal society shouldn't punish collectively... but if you insist only on collective violence, then do we have to treat you as individuals? If you renounce your individualism, do I respect you and treat that as the collective threat you present?
So, think carefully. What do you want me to do to you?
I'm afraid it isn't a yes-no question, because I'm not the one who can answer it. You are.
If my actions are directed by the NAP, then how you will be treated is entirely in reaction to your behavior. My behavior is already set. How do you wish to be treated? As an individual, or as a collective?
Your question will be to conflate Liberalism and Marxism, then ask me a question about Liberalism, which I would affiliate with because Libertarians are from Liberal thought. But maybe I'm giving you too much credit (despite the fact that Marxism is illiberal). Maybe you'll ask me something truly retarded.
White Nationalists are literally just punk-ass National Socialists. Lesser versions of NatSocs. Imagine admitting you're a Socialist.
No my question is if Marxists have the right to speech and own guns.
Cool, you did exactly what I thought you would do.
I'll answer with a follow-up question.
What do you think I should do to you?
As far as I'm concerned, the Marxists and National Socialists have to be treated in exactly the same way. Both of you are hell bent on the extermination of all dissent, individualism, property rights, privacy, and freedom. You want to accomplish this with unrestrained violence and genocide. But, the non-aggression principle suggests that I should defend myself only when attacked... pre-meditated defense doesn't really exist since there's no imminence, and "collective self-defense" flies in the face of individualism. But there can be no denying that the Socialists are always hell bent on a conspiracy to destroy everything we have and stand for.
Since you are both dedicated to our deaths in this conspiracy; you are an enemy faction hell bent on violence. Is that not imminence? Can an individual Socialist not be considered a threat, but two are (by definition) a threat? Do we stop you from meeting each other at all? Do we need to have a mandatory value standard? If you don't agree to the NAP, do you need to be physically removed? Is it appropriate to stop you ahead of time? What force needs to be used to stop you from destroying the very society we work for? What do I need to do to stop you from raping and murdering my wife and children in front of me, since you will do it given the first opportunity. Since you're equally the same threat, because you are the same people... what I do to the Marxist, is what I must do to you. No exceptions. A Liberal society shouldn't punish collectively... but if you insist only on collective violence, then do we have to treat you as individuals? If you renounce your individualism, do I respect you and treat that as the collective threat you present?
So, think carefully. What do you want me to do to you?
Answer my question dicklips. It's yes or no.
I'm afraid it isn't a yes-no question, because I'm not the one who can answer it. You are.
If my actions are directed by the NAP, then how you will be treated is entirely in reaction to your behavior. My behavior is already set. How do you wish to be treated? As an individual, or as a collective?
What should I do to you?