it was the first responder on this sub-thread that threatened to kill me. But he seems to be too busy off somewhere plotting the violent overthrow of the U.S. government to respond to my question, perhaps you would be willing to set me straight.
The part of that where I don't understand is that a plain reading of the NAP does not indicate such acts rise to the level of acts to which you can respond with force. The penis waiver (let's depersonalize this since if my wife caught me doing such a thing you would be the least of my worries!) has not "initiated force" or "committed fraud". The NAP does not permit you to initiate force just because someone else has done something which offends you.
Look, I agree with your conclusion. The perv ought to be sanctioned. I just don't agree that a plain reading of the NAP supports this. I mean, if the NAP is OK with me initiating force when I am morally offended then I guess I am OK with it in this instance.
What I see is a lot of people who want to claim the mantle of "libertarian" in order to demand other people leave THEM alone unless they initiate force or commit fraud, but somehow rationalize non-forceful acts which offend them as violating the NAP.
You are trying to segueway "offensive act" into "aggressive act". Maybe sexually, but that is not force. They impish pervs who ought to be decked, but not for the crime of "aggressive acts."
Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of