Comment: lol

(See in situ)


lol

NAP is part of a grandly binding ethic. That's precisely what it is, supposedly applying to everyone, everywhere, at all times, as valid a priori, coming from self ownership of sentient creatures.

I give you the opportunity to abandon NAP, if you want.

The NAP isn't just about your aggression, it's about how everyone relates in society, and what the proper way is. It concerns everyone's aggression. It hopes that agencies which choose to enforce NAP only rules proliferate, assuming people will embrace them.

You are basically engaged in eel-like behavior right now, attempting to retreat to a defensible perimeter, so that you can survive this exchange, only to re-expAnd later like a retarded sponge with the fallacies you are unable to defend directly right now.

You claim not to be concerned with the differences between your response to a threatening mosquito and a threatening man, but this is mere rhetoric, and weak!

Your treatment of a potentially threatening mosquito and a potentially threatening man are obviously very different, I would hope.

You swat the mosquito on a small chance of threat.

With men, you aren't going to swat or kill them without certainty, on NAP.

A third party agent, either arresting or sentencing, is not going to swat a human without certainty of their deserving it.

On NAP, in order for someone to be justified in capturing or killing a suspect, he must be just as certain as if he was himself witness or victim to the aggression of the accused.

I contend that only victims and witnesses can ever be this certain, and so can swat people in retribution. But no others.

Self defense during the act of the threat is obviously different. The person acting in self defense knows the danger to himself of a person pointing a gun.

But, on NAP, its not aggression. No victim, no crime.

A NAP enforcing agency would have to hold you to demand restitution if you arrested the person pointing the gun, since he did no harm.

But it would also be committing aggression to do so, since it didn't know if you were really guilty.

On NAP, you can't ever justly arrest anyone accept a direct attacker.

NAP does not include or demand any definition of what constitutes reasonable certainty of guilt. so, just as it lacks any definition of property, it also lacks this.

In order for NAP to be valid, you need to support the standard or generally accepted legal principle 'reasonable doubt' and jury trial, as being just grounds for attacking a suspect (grand jury suspicion), and so NAP would then extend to cover minarchist states, if it included the acceptance of reasonable doubt of a jury trial.

Ideally, the stupid phrase NAP would just be dropped with a reformulation that included some specific definition of property, and some specific definition of specific reasonable doubt threshold, some clause permitting the third party agent to act as avenger in behalf of an alleged victim, etc.

This new principle could claim to be reasonable, since NAP is wiped by one BILL3.