A Quote by Stephan Kinsella

Because the state necessarily commits aggression, the consistent libertarian, in opposing aggression, is also an anarchist. — © Stephan Kinsella
Because the state necessarily commits aggression, the consistent libertarian, in opposing aggression, is also an anarchist.
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.
I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
As for testosterone, it's gotten a bum rap. Yes, it has tons to do with aggression but it doesn't cause aggression as much as sensitizes you to the environmental triggers of aggression.
The problem isn't testosterone and aggression; it's how often we reward aggression. And we do: We give medals to masters of the "right" kinds of aggression. We preferentially mate with them. We select them as our leaders.
Aggression, it's the next thing to war, except you don't get killed. Aggression is what you have every day with your wife. Aggression is what you have every day at the office. Box is a legalized form of aggression, where the ending is well-defined, the combat is well-delivered, and you got 10 rounds of two equally-sized fighters fighting aggressively to hurt each other.
I feel playful aggression is important for children because they have to deal with all kinds of anger and aggression in their lives.
My early work is politically anarchist fiction, in that I was an anarchist for a long period of time. I'm not an anarchist any longer, because I've concluded that anarchism is an impractical ideal. Nowadays, I regard myself as a libertarian.
If there is no evidence that sport lowers aggression, at the same time it should be said that there is also no evidence that sport is motivated by aggression.
By reacting to aggression with aggression we lose the opportunity to spiritually benefit from the experience.
Aggression only moves in one direction - it creates more aggression.
All this going around is not aggression. If you want to see aggression on cricket field, look into Rahul Dravid’s eyes
Historically, aggression unanswered has led to more aggression.
I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual.
Controlled aggression, to me, is one of the most important traits to have. To have that social intelligence to know when to exert aggression in the military environment, and when to stay calm, cool, and collected.
It seems to me the worst possible concept, militarily, that we would simply stay there, resisting aggression, so-called...it seems to me that the way to "resist aggression" is to destroy the potentialities of the aggressor to continually hit you...When you say, merely, "we are going to continue to fight aggression," that is not what the enemy is fighting for. The enemy is fighting for a very definite purpose-to destroy our forces.
Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!