The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: It says it right in the first paragraph!

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: More straw men... (see in situ)

It says it right in the first paragraph!

It's definitional.

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

Within this definition is contained all of my points.

1) Arresting someone on suspicion or accusation is the initiation of physical force against a person, and their property (gathering evidence; murder weapon is property).

2) Holding someone for trial is the continuation of force against the same person, against their will, on the basis of someone else's claim.

3) Sentencing of such a person to any punishment is continued aggression on the basis of the decision of an arbitrary number of other people's opinions.

4) Doing any of these things to a person on the basis of that person's theft or violation of "property" presupposes a group-consensus definition of property that is above and beyond bodily self defense, and so depends for its legitimacy on the basic validity of the concept of group consensus overriding individual rights to travel (trespass) and forage (steal).

5) Any enforcement of contracts against the will of the person enforced upon depends on the validity of a group consensus deciding whether the accused party actually contracted, despite their possible denial of having contracted.

All of the above acts are aggression and violate NAP, on the basis of the definition of NAP you provided in your own link.

Therefore, I conclude that your comment is a false accusation against me of the strawman fallacy, and is poorly thought out. You offered no argument; you merely accused me falsely of arguing improperly. My arguments clearly stand, and accord with the definition in the link you provided.

This may leave you incredulous, since you haven't actually done the yeoman's work of thinking it through. But I have led you, horse, to water. It is up to you to drink.