The NAP

[idiom]

Then do you have a suggestion for stopping genocide beyond the old tired "bury our head in the sand" approach that most here follow?

As long as other people are the ones commiting Genocide, and your not the target, the NAP doesn't care.

Genocide is somebodies elses problem. If the victims hadn't been so aggressive then no one would be trying to kill them.

There is nothing particualry bad about genocide. The Bible is in favour of it, that is why the humanists don't like it.

 

[NationaliseIt]

Sell them stuff. A moot point while the state still grows. What are you doing about genocide?

A weak retort: I ask again, what is the libertarian position on genocide when you aren't one of the parties involved.

As long as other people are the ones commiting Genocide, and your not the target, the NAP doesn't care.

Genocide is somebodies elses problem. If the victims hadn't been so aggressive then no one would be trying to kill them.

There is nothing particualry bad about genocide. The Bible is in favour of it, that is why the humanists don't like it.

What is your position on abortion?

 

[idiom]

I would never abort a baby.

 

[NationaliseIt]

* Opinion on others aborting their child

* Opinion on a man in africa killing his 10 year old child

* Opinion on a man living next door to you killing his 10 year old child

 

[Truth Warrior]

A weak retort: I ask again, what is the libertarian position on genocide when you aren't one of the parties involved.

The NAP. Aren't you paying attention? Tell me the answer you want and I won't say it.

 

[Truth Warrior]

* Opinion on others aborting their child

* Opinion on a man in africa killing his 10 year old child

* Opinion on a man living next door to you killing his 10 year old child

How about starting your own thread? This one's already got a topic.

 

[NationaliseIt]

You started a thread about aggression and don't wish to answer questions about aggression (though there has been a minor diversion).

This thread shall do (they are more than just vessels for people to agree with you)


So what is your opinion on my three points? what is the NAP position on them?

 

[idiom]

* Opinion on others aborting their child

* Opinion on a man in africa killing his 10 year old child

* Opinion on a man living next door to you killing his 10 year old child

NAP says:

Who cares.
Who cares.
Who cares.

The Nap is thus incompatible with the Directives of pretty much every significant moral figure, especially Jesus who commanded us to Love our Neighbours as He loved us. He later expanded this to specifically mean showing pity to those in need.

The NAP is thus unsuitable as a serious personal philosophy.

It does work to some degree on a broader scale as loose binding philosphy on national governments if it is modified to allow collective security agreements.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If abortion is murder then you cannot deny that genocide is murder.

I didn't deny it.

Why does a mother aborting her unwanted pregnancy your business to get involved in? yet tens of thousands being systematically slaughtered will just get a head turned the other way?

I said nothing about turning a head. If you or anyone else wants to give every cent you have towards stopping genocide, or even go to the country where you think it is happening and try to stop it, that should be your choice.

Many US interventions were despicable, but by stopping genocides and protecting the weak, is that not providing a good example?

Go forth and stop them. No one is stopping you.

 

[idiom]

Go forth and stop them. No one is stopping you.

The Implicit claim of the OP is that we should not. The NAP is incompatible with vigilantism.

 

[Matt Collins]

I thought this thread title refereed to The Judge ;-)

 

[Truth Warrior]

You started a thread about aggression and don't wish to answer questions about aggression (though there has been a minor diversion).

This thread shall do (they are more than just vessels for people to agree with you)


So what is your opinion on my three points? what is the NAP position on them?

Clueless. It's a thread about NON-AGGRESSION. DUH!

Screw your OFF TOPIC three points. I'm tired of and bored by your lame non-responsive one-sided inquisition.

Buzz off.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I thought this thread title refereed to The Judge ;-)

Ha! I've learned from you, to not judge a thread by it's title.

 

[idiom]

Clueless. It's a thread about NON-AGGRESSION. DUH!

Screw your OFF TOPIC three points. I'm tired of and bored by your lame non-responsive one-sided inquisition.

Buzz off.

..

Typical.

 

[Truth Warrior]

There are a lot of "almost everyone"s and "most of the time"s in there.

How does one ensure that everyone follows the Non-Aggression Principle?

Or a better question: How would one ensure that the greatest number of people follow the NAP?




The above passage makes a very good argument to have some form of government.


Liberty is the state of freedom achieved when everyone abides by NAP.

But how often does someone violate the NAP? Pretty damned often.

When most people ask themselves what is "Natural Law", they think of the "law of the jungle", survival of the fittest, essentially total violence and chaos, kill or be killed.

Go into a jungle and observe a group of a certain species and watch how they interact with one another. Any social species with any amount of intelligence is not living in total violence and chaos.

Actually, they don't even need intelligence. Look at an ant, termite, or bee colony. Total chaos and violence? Hardly.

This is because by applying rational thought, we can discover or develop opportunities for working together to accomplish more than we could individually.

What's that? Working together through logic and rational thought to accomplish something? You mean like protecting each other's liberty (rights)? How would we do that?

Any systems where some people have more rights than others (like dictatorships) are closer to the law of the jungle

Supposedly, no one has any more rights than any other. So this passage contradicts itself.

Competition can still thrive and continue improving the species but can't get too far out of hand, because the system is self-balancing as long as most people understand and remember the main principle involved (NAP).

And of course, since everyone is so civilized, no one will violate the NAP.

This is what Common Law should really mean, and the world would be much better off if was truly the common (and only) law of the whole world.

Who's going to enforce this law?

What if a person decides to violate the NAP? Then what?

I believe that you are merely choosing to miss the point, on purpose. And BTW, working awfully hard at THAT too.<IMHO>

The NAP is NOT a "collective" solution. It's an individual one.

The NAP is NOT a law, it's a principle. Hence the "P" part of NAP. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle

The point is:

“Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property. In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.”

That seems pretty hard to miss, to me, ya just gotta be REALLY REALLY trying.

 

[Truth Warrior]

The passages below back it up.

Read.

The top part of the OP explains your confusion. Read.