You have started me down a rabbit hole of true freedom. I always had a libertarian slant but thought the government to be necessary. I'm struggling with non-aggression principle; I agree with a lot of the principle but don't believe it's the answer.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It doesn't sound like you were given the N.A.P. because there is not "a lot" to agree with. It's very short & sweet, keep your word & don't hurt or threaten to hurt anyone or their property.
The TRUTH doesn't care what you "believe". The TRUTH is always true no matter what, period. The N.A.P. is the only answer, whether you agree with it or not. If your truly coming down the rabbit hole you'll see that soon enough. Won't you grab me a 6 pack for when you get way down here where the rest of us are? We're looking forward to your arrival. Cheers!
What do you NOT agree about not initiating force and violence on peaceful people?
I'm struggling with the morality of the greater good, and what can be considered aggression. Is it moral to infringe on the few to better humanity? One could argue using aggression in this case is moral. I know this a form tyranny of the many. Maybe, I'm so indoctrinated that my brain is having a hard time accepting what true freedom is? My next problem would be individuals that have lower and higher standards for aggression. How would this be resolved? I like said; I just start down the hole. This sticking point might resolve itself with more research and soul searching.
I think I see where you are coming from. It is easy to envision living in peace with the non-aggression principle if the people are indeed peaceful. However, the reality of this world is that many people do not choose to live in peace. Many choose to dominate over others, intentionally. Of this demographic, most of them are ignorant of the non-aggression principle. Even still, what other way would you deal with this situation? Creating a monster to defeat your enemies will only give you a bigger enemy and that monster is government.
As for where the line is drawn? It is very simple. Did someone initiate force upon another WITHOUT his or her consent? That is, did they hurt, threaten, steal, trespass, vandalize, de-fraud, or otherwise deceive that individual? If yes to any of these, then you are an aggressor. If anyone should commit any of these acts towards you, you are then justified to use violent and even deadly force if necessary to defend against such aggression. Violence may not be necessary and of course, a moral person would use the least amount of force necessary to defend against said aggression. I am sure this brings up many additional questions, such as allocation of land and natural resources. How far down do you want to go?