non aggression principle & politics

[Undertoad]

This thread is meant to restart what Radar and I started in the "RIP Reagan" thread. Radar, if you will...

When last we were involved in this, we were trying to determine how the NAP is an all-encompassing coherent "philosophy", and I was asking you questions about what sort of government it leads one to.

as an aside to the confused, the NAP as stated in the LP membership form becomes: "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

We were talking about your theoretical neighbor who speeds through a school zone. I think we had determined that, under the NAP, he could be considered as initiating force through putting people at an unreasonable risk.

We had determined that, under the NAP, those at risk could hire agents to prevent the neighbor from speeding.

We had determined that, under the NAP, a disagreement over what constitutes force in this speeding is determined by a judiciary which is appointed or elected.

We had not yet determined what would happen under the NAP if a judiciary acts out of accord with the NAP.