Thursday, October 15, 2015

The uNicorns and rAinbows Principle

The title isn't a typo. It's just a more accurate acronym source for NAP (aka ZAP). I've been harping on this for awhile. The idea of NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle is basically that you should not initiate force against another. Well and good. But that's not at all a principle to live by — It's a principle that civilized people can mutually agree to abide by in dealing with one another. And, in fact, in most of the civilized world, people have more or less already agreed to behave that way in dealing with other people who seem to have the same attitude.

Note that I said "civilized world" and "more or less." Most of the world isn't really civilized, at least not to the extent that the NAP is comprehensible to them, and even there, it's realized that self-preservation trumps utopian principles anyway. You go by the NAP when it's not self-destructive to do so.

But the members of the flaky wing of libertarianism, like their liberal sisters, prefer theory to reality, and talk about the NAP as the sort of thing that will spread around the world like wildfire if old fuddy-duddies like me will just stop arguing that it won't.

Jeff Odgis elaborates on the principle of not falling for the non-aggression principle:
---------------

A friend scored: 'Libertarian,' on a quiz, AND I SAID:

A total global minority unfortunately, and even a minority within the US and other European nations. The way the US Founders spread liberty is they achieved small, in-group consensus of Enlightenment principles and then fought a campaign of what some may see as terrorism, others Direct Action and Resistance, and then later a bloody war (involving no less than one, and really three other imperial states,) for their/our Independence. In other words, NAP is totally out the window from a historical standpoint except for precious, isolated, small-population examples which are indisputably outliers. If you want liberty, be prepared to a) fight for it b) impose the condition on others who otherwise would deprive you of it.

Part of the genius of our Founders was realizing that their position was still a minority even here. Even here. And still is. So the Government they created - notably - THEY CREATED A GOVERNMENT - was designing one which was later imitated by the Turks: Militantly secular, and prevented by fundamental law from giving into the people's desire for tyranny. Further, they created a division of powers to prevent this. They may not have foreseen the administrative law means by which so much of that has been circumvented, but their overall design, brilliant, still works, before all of that is taken into consideration.

Now it's up to the People to decide what they want to do with administrative law state we've been left with. I have a few things in mind, and abolishing it altogether is very, very unlikely to happen - no popular will for that - and education presumes, as a method, a willingness to learn - the opposite is true. So I think a New Revolution of sorts is in order: Liberty must be re-imposed both on the people and the [restraint on] Government. It might be necessary to use force to achieve this. I see no irony there.
----------
Quibcag: The illustration is certainly inspired by Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā), but I have a feeling it's fan art.

1 comment: