• @johker216
    link
    01 year ago

    No, the NAP is a principle not a substitute set of laws. It applies equally to an individual or to groups affected by a policy; the point is to lessen, not eliminate, ‘agression’ on balance and holistically. What you’re describing is used not just by ‘libertarians’ but by anyone that doesn’t want a law to apply to them.

    • Rottcodd
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      The NAP is only colorably considered a “principle” when one applies it toward one’s own life and one’s own choices. That’s notably NOT the way that the “libertarians” who pay it the most lip service use it.

      Instead, they apply it to other people’s lives and other people’s choices. And the explicit point is to measure the nominal accepability of those other people’s lives and choices, and as necessary to provide colorable justification for imposing their wills on those other people in order to prevent or punish the “wrong” choices.

      That’s the exact function of law, simply transferred to a different concept.

      • @johker216
        link
        11 year ago

        Isn’t this entire thread about “libertarians” vs libertarians? I’m not sure who you’re trying to argue with but it certainly isn’t me 😁

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        By “libertarians”, are you referring to the non-libertarians that OP was outlining in their post?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      the point is to lessen, not eliminate, ‘agression’

      Did you overlook the “non” in “non-aggression principle”?

      What you’re describing is used not just by ‘libertarians’ but by anyone that doesn’t want a law to apply to them.

      You think that libertarians don’t think laws apply to them…?