David Gornoski on Jesus’ Example of Nonviolence

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • Is heaven a libertarian society?

    Jump to Discussion Post 118 replies
  • I just joined Philosophical Anarchists, my first group. I wanted to add this as a comment on the topic, “How to defend the NAP.” Couldn’t figure out how to do so, but saw the “start new” button and clicked on it. So here I am, not to defend but to challenge NAP. My inspiration for questioning NAP is an article I read in THE VOLUNTARYIST by Spencer Heath MacCallum entitled, “A Skeptic’s View of One’s Right to Defensive Force. Since I cannot add to Spencer’s argument, I would invite those who care to consider an alternative to NAP to critique Spencer’s article:

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Usually when people talk about free market defense, they talk about how to sell defensive force as a commodity. And while I believe that defensive force is justified, I don’t believe it’s the best way to resolve disputes. Obviously the purpose of DROs would be to resolve disputes without escalating to force. But what about emergent scenarios where violence is already happening? Sure, you can go in with guns blazing, and as long as you only shoot the aggressors, NAP says you’re fine. But I’m interested in talking about ways in which violent situations can be deescalated, and threats neutralized without people getting shot. Does anyone know of any serious theory, or better yet, real-life experimentation with this?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies