Why do some people get so worked up, trying to find loopholes or flaws in the Zero Aggression Principle?
I believe it's because they view it as a threat.
I see it as a promise.
What I mean by that is I don't go around trying to catch people initiating force. What I do is promise people that this is how I will behave toward them. I will not initiate force, nor violate their private property. If I do, I accept the consequences.
It is also a warning of sorts: "This is my line in the sand; as long as you don't cross it, we won't have a problem. If you do, this is what you can expect of me". I don't see that as a threat, but maybe you do.
Most people I notice trying to weasel around the ZAP, while treating it as a threat, are wanting to feel good about reserving some imaginary right to initiate force or violate property. A person who has no aggressive designs doesn't generally think twice about it (other than as a philosophical exercise).
.
Zap gives guidance about the use of force. It has a "line in the sand" exemption.This exemption is discretionary. This exemption is controversial. Defining this exemption is similar to agreeing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
ReplyDeleteZAP is a fine way to start out in life.
What is the exemption?
DeleteIt is your exemption: "this is my line in the sand". I trust that you know what your own line in the sand is and do not require a "finding" from some Libertarian Judge.
DeleteAh. I don't see that as an exemption. I have no right to initiate force, and neither do you, and if you do initiate force I have the right to defend myself. Defending myself can't be an exemption to the ZAP because doing so isn't "aggression", it is defense. Now, maybe I lied about who started it- and that's when arbitration would come into play. That's just a "flaw" in reality- you can't know everything and sometimes people lie.
DeleteOK, you have a hang-up with my term "exemption". Cross out all the places that I used "exemption" and replace with your term "right to defend myself". My point of interest remains the same.
DeleteI wrote this last night: "The NAP is like fried chicken---it's a choice. Maybe a better choice, maybe a more important choice, but it's still just a choice."
ReplyDeleteFor eternity it seems, people have been looking for something outside of their own minds to set the path for them, to tell them what's right from wrong AND what they ought to do about it when others do wrong. It's as if they believe that with that, somehow their own responsibility will go poof and vanish. No longer is it their responsibility; it's the principle that did it, or our leaders or our society. Always someone else, ALWAYS someone else.
The only part I can't figure out is, "WHY?"
Principles, leaders, society, I just follow the voices in my own mind. I am a different species than the rest of you with your beehive mentality.
DeletePrinciples, leaders, society, I just follow the voices in my own mind. I am a different species than the rest of you with your beehive mentality.
Delete