You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Answer to a Common Critique of the Non-Aggression Principle.

in #anarchy6 years ago

I didn't mean bringing people to consensus by force as it is against the very essence of the NAP, but it is about protection of those who adopt violence as means of imposing their ideologies.
These countries are exactly what I am talking about. The majority are illiterate and can be easily swayed by self-righteous groups. In order to peacefully end aggression all parties shall peacefully reach consensus which is impossible there.

Sort:  

Sorry, I probably didn't explain that very well and I realise you didn't mean by force. What I was trying to say was that you can only bring someone to a concensus if they are willing to come to one. If they aren't willing then they can't be brought to one and there is no point pushing that because you risk becoming like them yourself. Does that make sense?

I think the majority in many countries can be easily swayed. It's hard work being responsible for yourself and it's easier to let someone else dictate behaviour.

all parties shall peacefully reach consensus which is impossible there.

Agreed. I think it might be impossible most places unless we all miraculously evolve to become reasonable people.

That is true. It actually requires tremendous effort to promote such radical change to people.