ma ni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Vic, > > As far as I am concerned, the NAP is not a bilateral-only > proposition. Both sides need not hold the same position in order > for one side to apply it. If you feel (as a nation or an > individual) that you can not apply the > NAP alone, then you don't understand the onus of the principle. > The onus is not on the other side to apply non-aggression first; > it is on your side to apply it first. I think your confusion lies > in your definitions. Please see TLP's post just now, and repeated > often; read it closely. Applying the NAP does not rule out self > defense against "the INITIATION, or credible threat of > initiation, of physical force against" your side or its justly > held possessions. > > Although I think your intention is to find a solution to the > problem of aggression, the method you seem to advocate is not a > good one. And when it comes to human aggression, a bad solution > is often an exacerbation. > > All libertarian positions are based on this non-aggression > principle. I imagine the basis of your acceptance of some of them > is the same. This should suggest to you that your exclusion of > the NAP (as you have worded it) is inconsistent.
as worded the principle is too cut and dry. for example it takes nothing into consideration about psychological and emotional violence. under the current wording its quite ok to browbeat people into doing whatever you like so long as you make no physical threat. further it says nothing about alies. what if your alies are under physical agression? why should you not initiate physical force to protect and defend them. what constitutes a credible threat? does stockpiling nuclear weapons constiture a credible threat? what if your inteligence is unable to penetrate to find the real plans? do you wait till you receive a cripling blow preventing you from retaliating? then its too late. thats what NAP invites. events are often clouded and confused and lacking information. each person at the scene of an accident will report different stories. certainly under stressful situations the credibility of threat is entirely subjective. what about unrelated third parties. why should you not come to their rescue? its almost inhuman to let them suffer at the hands of some brutaliser. take an expansionist ideology, it makes no bones about the fact that its aims is to overthrow liberty. is that sufficient a credible threat? why in this case should allow that idealogy to gain sufficient strength to really pose a threat? unilateral NAP in the light of dangerous ideologies is itself a major expoitable weakness. liberty has a long history of being won by overthrowing regimes, from the way before the french revolution, to the war of independence, the civil wars. etc virtually all wars about some form of liberty. imo a bilateral agreement specifically between countries should state that both side will live under freedom. atruce between a free country and a totalitarian state is a cop out. its an abandonment of the pople who are stuck and cant free themselves. thats not an appealing moral position. my feeling is that people use the NAP to try and create an aboslute world with no relatives. where every situation is just an application of a single principle. now I am very pro objectivism, and the idea that life must come first to me is paramount, but, I dont for a moment beleive that relativism is to be totally rejected. on the contrary I arrive at an objectivist position on the proviso that absolutism or non-relativism occurs principly by agreement. in other words we can agree within certain room for error that something can be treated as absolute in many cases, but not in all cases. in regards to placing life as primary what then when its one life traded off for another? for example nth korea is brutalising some minority. it seems the hard core libertarian position is to say, ok get out of the way not our problem. thats not right to me. thats a clear case of unilateral NAP serving no purpose but to tacitly consent to a crime. the NAP needs to be interpreted case by case and certainly never unilateraly. Vic ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
