Why do I 'not like' the NAP, you ask? Because the NAP is used to preach some type of Libertarian utopia that has never been seen on land or sea or in the fossil record and upon cursory and deeper analysis to the society governed by NAP one (who is literate in civics) realizes how deranged and ridiculous it is as a sole governing and moral philosophy. That is why.
As far as I can tell, the only people in this thread who have claimed that NAP should be the "sole" moral philosophy are those who oppose it and those who fail to understand it. The rest of us recognize that non-aggression is merely the basis of any consistent, and just, moral code.
And how do you have modern debt relationships without, yes, a monopoly of power that enforces the same rules and promotes a reasonably fair '3rd-party' that is relatively indifferent to the proceedings but is acting in the universally established methods and rules for governing said situation?
The "modern" derivatives market, which is completely unregulated, managed to create $600 trillion in liabilities with no governing authority whatsoever. I submit that as evidence of the possibility for debt relationships to exist without government monopolies.
The world, actually the universe, exists in a constant state of flux. Things change and will forever always change as far as we know. Humanity can either react to the change (your seemingly preferred method), let’s call this the reactive approach. Or humanity can be proactive and governed by wisdom, that is by the people that have the foresight to see these things coming and can steer the civilization away from said catastrophes and toward higher states of existence.
The NAP does not prevent individuals, and society by extension, from being proactive, or from following the wise who see change coming. Though I can see how you may have gotten this impression by generalizing the views of some Libertarians. I'm just going to defend non-aggression here, not market anarchy.
In terms of existential threats: presently we are seeing an economic meltdown that has the potential to be more disastrous than the Great Depression. We see an incredible escalation of NATO aggression against Russia that is rapidly heating up in the thermonuclear armament sphere. We have a worldwide decaying UK/US (‘special relationship’) empire that is frantically trying to maintain their oligarchical privilege (which all you are unknowingly defending with your crackpot ideology) and threatening a thermonuclear WWIII of mass extinction on the planet. And these are just some of our problems.
Frankly I assumed you would choose a more realistic threat than this. Do you recognize the irony that, thanks to a minor application of the NAP known as mutually-assured destruction, neither the US nor Russia will even remotely approach thermonuclear confrontation? Nuclear war is a complete canard. Neither Putin nor Obama are irrational actors. Not even Dick Cheney was insane enough to broach this.
The economic meltdown is a disaster, true, but it is a contrived disaster which is being deliberately exacerbated by the FED, just like the Great Depression. And, yes, the solution to this problem lies with the masses, with projects like Bitcoin and others. The solution to poor (or in this case malicious) leadership is not different leadership, it's less leadership.
By saying that these problems should be left to “the people”, as such, is saying the emergent behavior of the people is to take action and if the society (“the people”) do not take action then they (“the people”) are to blame for their problems; this is the doctrine of “Collective Guilt” – and I must admit, it’s a brilliant way to try and shirk your responsibility.
Look, I have no responsibility to hand-hold every mouth-breathing moron into making the correct decisions in life. The most I can do is point out the correct path, and to insulate myself from the consequences of their not taking it. The choice is up to them.
You accuse adherents of non-aggression of protecting "oligarchs", and then promote this "heroic leader" garbage? You should consider yourself lucky if aristocrats choose to lead by example rather than simply marching the poor lemmings off to an early demise as they have done repeatedly throughout history. Is that the "responsibility" you think is being shirked?
And it's not "collective guilt" for individuals to be collectively responsible for their individual choices. It's just reality. If you want to change that reality, you won't do it through heroic republicanism and convoluted legalism. Clearly all that does is make us all collectively responsible for an ever-increasing prison population. You'll do it by promoting basic property rights, individual responsibility and non-aggression.
We live in a world with thermonuclear weapons, with the technology to destroy us all, return to a new Dark Age or to usher in a new Renaissance all within our lifetimes. The choice is all yours; the defeat has the potential to be absolute, but so does the victory.
I'm glad you bring this up. Because I think it's also important to point out that we live in a world in which
individuals can obtain thermonuclear weapons, and the technology to destroy us all.
As a result, I would proffer that the rational choice for those who wish to guide civilization away from ruin, would be to tone down the grandiose collectivist navel-gazing, and consider adopting a more strictly moral philosophy that accounts for this fact.
In addition, your allusion to Occam is misguided, simply because something is complex doesn’t imply inconsistency.
I was alluding to Gödel.
These are the types of fears inherent in the NAPtopians, that by somehow atomizing the society, which is the logical result of the NAP, then they will arrive at a place where moral decisions are no longer relevant and no longer required simply by virtue of their existence. The great burden of being human will be lifted from their shoulders. This is another allure of the NAP.
Yes, and the fact that you don't believe this is possible tells me that you don't fully understand the concept of non-aggression.
Furthermore, that you can only seem to define morality in terms of "justice", and justice in terms of "nebulous ethereal feelings", tells me that you don't really have any better alternative either.
Was the mention of Hammurabi's Code some type of attempt at intellectual name dropping?
This was to give you a "right wing" option. Since I'm not up to snuff on neo-conservative political philosophy, unfortunately it was the best I could do.
