Comment: I'm not sure what your argument is here

(See in situ)


I'm not sure what your argument is here

You seem to be just conceding that NAP is not valid, since violating regularly would be a necessary and legitimate function of any society. So you're just agreeing with me that what NAP defines as aggression is a normal, legitimate and necessary function of society. This is so not just in the provision of justice, including arrest, trial, verdicts, but also contract enforcement, tactics in war, the definition of property ownership, the funding of all this apparatus, and the exclusion or punishment of free riders and violators of implicit trust and contract in the social organism. You aren't refuting me; you're agreeing with me.

You're abandoning NAP as a valid and binding principle by acknowledging that any justice system, public or private, would need violate it to function. All of these NAP violations that you accept to be necessary are founded on the principle of a group consensus being valid and overriding the individual's claim to be free from aggression.

In granting this principle, you abandon the standard NAP formulation, and you accept the principle that aggression can be justified with a group consensus in which the majority justifies its aggression against the individual on the basis of its own perceived well being.

You have now joined the adult section of the conversation, if you can stick with it.