ITT: Discuss what does and does not violate the NAP, while not violating the NAP in the process

>fragile x syndrome
huh, that's new

Attached: 800wm[1].jpg (595x800, 79K)

That violates the NAP. No doubt.

But they need to work, and they were given a job. We need people to work, so as the agency that repairs the roads in a town, you need to pay them the money people pay to get roads fixed near them.

You cannot just fire workers because. That'd violate the NAP.

107 years old
google
thomas woodrow wilson
h p lovecraft
fragile x syndrome

fyi hydra>cthulu

property rights, self ownership

violation occurs
at involuntary physical force against another

bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

1/2

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

2/3

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

3/3

>But they need to work, and they were given a job. We need people to work, so as the agency that repairs the roads in a town, you need to pay them the money people pay to get roads fixed near them.

>You cannot just fire workers because. That'd violate the NAP.

That's wrong. Also that's socialism. NAP relies on freedom of interaction. You could get fired because the employer doesn't like your ears. Not a violation.

huxley.net/bnw-revisited/

4/4

Only if it's a privately owned road is that okay.

Sounds pretty aggressive.

Abortion?

Aggressive towards potential workforce.

>abortion violates NAP
Is intent enough to act?
So you restrain the mother until birth, then steal the baby and shoot the mother ?

Wombs should be rented out by those who wish to use them for procreation. If the woman terminates the fetus then the man gets a full refund.

Attached: acncap comfy sweater 1522165873186.jpg (600x600, 63K)

^^^

Loud noises can violate nap.
But seriously, what is? Not from US.

if verbal contract in place for contraception 4 trimesters are legal

for fuck sake. Cannot unsee

So how do you value life?
Doesn't that violate the fetuses nap?

Forcing someone to employ someone they don't want on threat of legal action is aggressive. Firing someone ends aggression.

Can someone create an augmented reality app for phones, constantly displaying NAP spheres for all entities? How else are you going to manage that?

fetus dont have nap is parents concent
breaks prior standing contract of agreed contraception, legally, there is and never was fetus. includes 4th trimester DRO

dispute resolution organisaton

The NAP would likely default to the mother's discretion. Every system, not just the NAP, has an issue with this topic. Since the infant is entirely reliant on the parents for survival, they're the only people who can make the decision without adding more force and aggression.

You sound like a communist, what if there is no contract?

>The NAP would likely default to the mother's discretion
But what about equal rights between genders?

All forms of pollution infringe on the liberty of others and therefore violate the NAP.

close ur windows. its ur property right.

with free market we get cannabis fuel and geothermal and solar anyway

then ur an idiot and shouldnt sleep with her

i know im clear to any cunt who lied about the pill ur fucking dead

dclxvi

technocratic intelligentsia

So it's not a violation to force me to be indoors on my large estate because of your pollution?

plant trees, invest in clean energy, become warlord

So if someone pollutes I can become a warlord without violating the NAP?

That does sound about right.

That would be equity, not equality. And since men can't get pregnant, they don't count. That would also default to whatever arrangement both parents have with each other.

If the female is insistent on keeping the child without input from the male, then the male isn't obligated to support the decision. Equality in practice.

No one can exist without polluting, therefore it's a moot point. Intentionally polluting someone else property would be a violation, otherwise it's not aggression, just living in a system of physics where byproducts of other actions occur. Don't be a bitch.

ur enforcing ur property rights before theirs, they broke first

So if I pollute accidentally it's okay, but if I intentionally drive then that's a violation. Got it.

Yes. However, if your pollution is causing unreasonable harm and you're confronted on it with proof of said harm, that's a different story. At that point a NAP violation might occur within the negotiations. No guarantee though.

Ah, so it's only a violation if it causes "unreasonable harm". Can you point me to where reasonable harm is defined in the NAP?

There is no static definition, as harm is determined on a case by case basis. As is the resolution of the conflict. The NAP would only dictate that the matter is settled in some fashion between the parties involved.

But you said it was only a violation if I caused "unreasonable" harm. I only intend to harm people in ways I consider reasonable, so I won't be violating NAP.

As much as you mock it, there is such a thing as reasonable harm. Adding intention to it makes it aggressive and therefore unreasonable.

Violating the NAP requires intent. Just like any proper judicial practice. If you intend to harm someone, that's unreasonable. There's no negotiation or agreement to what happening. That's what makes 'reasonable harm' "reasonable." You can't exist without unintentionally harming something or someone at some level. That's a consequence of the universe we inhabit.

If we can minimize it, great. If you can't, then the other party has to realize that they live on the planet with other people who are doing the exact same thing to everyone else in order to survive.

Ok, I get it. I can do all the risky shit I want as long as the intention isn't to harm someone.

I can work with that.

no not intent. u CANT harm someone.

Seems like you two need to figure this out.

Can I harm people or not? I only mean reasonable harm, like unintentionally.

It's not a violation of the NAP, per se. But, if you aren't taking the wellbeing of your fellow man into consideration also, it doesn't necessarily put you in the right either.

Since you intend to do something risky, the outcome is technically your fault. If someone comes to harm because of it, then they aren't violating the NAP by confronting you for recompense.

So the NAP isn't the determining factor in moral issues or torts then. It's about taking other people into consideration in some as of yet undefined manner?

It depends on the context. If the other party is violating the NAP against you, harm is allowed to ensure your own survival.

Intentional harm is an act of aggression; explicitly violating the Non-Aggression Principal. Everything outside of that is up to negotiations between people.

It's a very natural system. It's not nearly as complicated as it sounds. You have a problem with something someone did. What do you do? You take it arbitration or Court and have a judge try to make a clear decision on if someone is owed for damages. That can't be spoken on by the NAP.

And I'll say this much, the NAP is only confusing because the dipshits in Anarcho-Capitalism took it over. It's not compatible with a lack of government.

No. The only issues that the NAP really comments on is Natural Rights and Private Property. Everything else is up to negotiations, agreements and resolutions in line with evidence-based judicial practice.

I'm kind of bored of this now. Look, the NAP is a really appealing moral philosophy because it appears so elegantly simple. It's completely hollow though. It's an exercise in sophistry. Don't get sucked down the lolbertarian rabbit hole, you seem too smart and genuine for that.

say im anosognosiad retarded and dont realise im doing harm ie physical literal violence and therefor have excuse to continue without intent

I'm already Libertarian. Have been for a long time. The NAP is hollow by itself. But we already use it. The Constitution, The Amendments (at least not the retarded ones) and Capitalism (The private property variant, not the Oligarchical one) is the NAP in practice.

What a faggy snek

Attached: 186D3F82-ABC2-4385-B5A1-B6F42EE3A8B6.png (1982x1133, 80K)

Pollution violates the NAP

That's better