Philosophically speaking, who was in the wrong here?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R_FQU4KzN7A&pp=ygUNcG90aW9uIHNlbGxlcg%3D%3D
>>24100373The potion seller has a rhetorical problem. It makes sense not to sell a product to someone if you know they're going to kill themselves with it.
>>24100373continuing to demand the seller's wares after repeatedly being told "no" and being asked to leave violates the NAP. the seller was within his rights to deploy tactical nukes to remove the adventurer from his property.t. ancap ethics expert
wtf is wrong with that guy's face
>>24101215I don't get it, but based??
>>24100373The seller should not have attempted to obstruct the adventurer on the path appointed to him by God.
>>24100373The potion seller says that his potions "would kill a dragon let alone a man" and seems to refuse to sell his potions to anyone too weak for them. Assuming dragons are very rare and powerful, and that beings more powerful than dragons are even rarer and therefore highly unlikely to visit the potion store, we may conclude that this potion seller is not likely to sell his potions to anyone. But what is the purpose of a potion seller? To sell potions. If a potion seller does not sell potions, then he is a failure as a potion seller. Philosophically speaking, he is certainly in the wrong.
>>24100373The potion seller is wrong because the traveler has a chad physiognomy whereas the potion seller has a very asymmetrical face.
