Drlee wrote:
Here are some:
It is childish.
As a response to a challange to underpin your case logically, you start with namecalling?
It establishes itself on one, unalterable moral absolute.
Its a basic guideline for people to live. Its fairly flexible. Anyway, you yourself do not hold any moral absolutes? For example, would you not say it is a moral absolute that I shouldn't go out in the street shooting people?
Not only does it defy logic, it defies human behavior established for millennia.
Maybe human behavior these past millenia has been wrong?
One of the most fundamental problems with the NAP is that it defines aggression in a manner that is unsupportable. The NAP is held by you and others, as I mentioned, as a moral absolute. So applying the NAP one could not drill for oil because that pollutes and the pollution would be aggression against others. One could not drive a car because it pollutes. One could not have a water heater in his house because it pollutes. It fails because strict adherence to it rules out even insignificant acts of aggression when they serve the common good. One could not tax each American even a single penny because taxation is aggression against property. Even if that taxation was used to purchase the cure for cancer. Of course there could be no penny because producing it requires aggression against the people who own the roads surrounding the copper mine should they object to the mine. In other words, it is just childish silliness. The NAP legitimizes sexism and racism provided they do not affect property. So under the NAP may I play my music loud enough for you to hear it if you object. If I am driving down the road listening to music and you stop at a light with me, must I turn down my music because you object and that makes my music aggression?
You just don't understand the NAP. It is a flexible moral tool to evaluate whether an action constitutes agression. Libertarians don't believe people are robots (no matter how much you want to repeat this). Social interaction isn't black and white but it is shades of gray. An ideal libertarian society would have judges interpret the NAP for every specific situation, not computers. The issues you raise are borderline cases: is this agression or not? People will have to decide.
The idea that aggression is wrong is pretty absolute, but the exact definition and interpretation of aggression is not. The difference between libertarian law and government law is the following:
Government law: the law is valid if it has followed the right procedures, for example: approved by parliament.
Libertarian law: the law is valid if it respects the NAP.
The interpretation of aggression is of course very important. A society that claims to follow the NAP but interprets aggression in the wrong way is not libertarian. But in the context of human interaction I don't see a way out of this. There is no god handing out absolute judgement. People will always have to judge, it will always be subjective.
Moral absolutes are just stupid.
Then there is this. We order our society the way we want to. Your personal peccadillos are not of much concern to us. The sun and stars do not revolve around you. As humans we know that we are expendable. You are too. I really don't care what you think about the NAP I (and virtually everyone I know) rejects it out of hand. So what are you going to do about it sport? Welcome to life in the food-chain.
That fact that you care to reply, must mean that you care. You make the effort of ranting a some paragraphs and then end disdainly by: "i don't care". Well, if you don't care, why do you open the libertarian subforum?