non aggression principle & politics

[Radar]

Actually I believe we did discuss the consequences HERE when I said...

Originally Posted by Radar

I suppose then you don't vote for him next time, or you don't vote for those who appointed him. If his actions are overtly egregious, I suppose you could try to get him disbarred, or fired. If he is using force to violate the rights, property, or person of someone who has not committed a crime (as defined earlier), I suppose you could use force or violence in your own defense against the judge or those following his orders, though I tend to try to solve things peacefully until violence is used against me. Then I don't care whether you're wearing a uniform or not. Nobody is above an ass kicking.

Also, I never said anything about "all encompassing philosophies. I don't believe any philosophy is "all encompassing". I do think it's a flawless ethical philosophy though.

[russotto]

I prefer the Iron Rule, "do unto others as they have done unto you".

As for the guy speeding through the school zone; forget it, you can't do anything about it if you follow the NAP. If you start making imposition of an arbitrary amount of risk into "initiation of force" (and the amount of risk from doing 25mph in a 15mph zone is pretty small compared to other risks accepted daily) which can be legitimately responded to with retaliatory force, you've vitiated the NAP. The amount of paternalistic legislation which can be justified under the "non-imposition of risk" principle is enormous.

The NAP, of course, is not the be-all and end-all of libertarianism; it started as a way of keeping the LP from getting tagged as a revolutionary organization, back when the government was especially oppressive about such things.