Comment: the only few points i could

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You're confused and rude. (see in situ)

the only few points i could

the only few points i could pick out of your reply that addressed anything relevant to what i said i will respond to below.

>There are only two consistent moral positions. Initiation of aggression is right for all, ie nihilism. Aggression is right for none, ie voluntarysim.<

that is not what nihilism means at all but in any case, what is right for me is not necessarily right for you. why do you think otherwise? why do you have to analyze it in terms of right and wrong? why do you need to judge others morally? why do you believe that your interests and actions have to be approved of by everyone else? why do you need to limit your own behavior on the basis of some utopian ideal of how you want everyone else to behave? you have not established the validity of your premise from which all your conclusions are drawn. you've just asserted that this is how it should be because that's how you want it to be. i never said anything about morality.

>Voluntaryism is consistent, but doesn't result in conflict. We know this because the vast majority of our interactions are voluntary and do not result in conflict.<

the vast majority of our interactions are voluntary within the context of the reality of law backed by force. we have no experience with any other reality. our experience with absence of coercive law is anarchy. a state of anarchy is characterized by a lack of predictability in the use of coercive force. law or order is the predictable use of coercive force according to some known principles. this is what enables society and markets to exist and all your cherished voluntary organizations. they don't exist in the absence of coercive enforcement of the law.

>If you believe as Hobbes or Nitche why would you be offended if some deluded fools go chasing rainbows?<

in future please try not to misspell nietzsche's name. thnx.