I think the NAP is confusing people.Submitted by Absolute Rights on Fri, 01/17/2014 - 20:34
Fraud is not aggression.
Aggression is not wrong and neither is is the initiation of force.
I use aggression when I train karate, and I initiate force when I lift weights...or type, or anytime I begin an activity.
1) Many forms of aggression do not cause harm.
2) Many forms of harm are not caused by aggression.
So what gives with the NAP? Why is that the slogan for individual liberty?
How does it serve our movement to have a philosophical slogan that is errant on its face. It confuses people, and requires explanation every time the contradictions get pointed out.
Let's correct it once and for all.
To start the brainstorming session I offer the following:
Do not Initiate Nonconsensual Harm.
That's it. It includes all behavior that harms another. Violence, faud, statutes, etc...It perfectly wraps up what the NAP attempts to communicate. "INH" if we need a three letter acronym-or NINH. but for the sake of science, we have got to get our stuff together.
Let's break it down:
"Do not": Is a restriction
"Initiate": to means to start; and it leaves room for defensive and restoration.
"nonconsensual": means against someone else's will; and it leaves room for consent such as UFC fighting...other risky yet consensual acts.
"harm": means to injure ones interests.
Can the liberty movement have a sacred cow?
"Do not initiate nonconsensual harm."
In response to the flaming this post has gotten, I want to make something very clear:
I agree with the principle...I want to improve the label/slogan because:
1)When discussing LAW reform, precision is key. And the underlying principle ought to be as precise as the laws it will produce.
2)When introducing unfamiliar concepts to new people, clarity and simplicity is key. As it stands, the NAP requires a mountain of mental gymnastics to tie fraud to aggression. Even tying fraud to property rights is difficult. (Fraud is a contractual male en se offense.)
3) Non consensual harm already has legal precedence. A private party cannot have a valid cause of action without nonconsenual harm. It is a part of our legal heritage.
Those are my concerns and they are motivated by the goal of attaining individual liberty in my lifetime. Feel free to FLAME or to turn on your creativity and brainstorm with me. Whichever you think will help accomplish the objective.