whatmakesmansafe

The non-aggression principle(NAP) can be viewed as the holy grail of peace and prosperity on earth.

Simply stated, 'aggression' in this context is defined as the initiation of physical force, against person or property, or the imminent threat of such initiation. By 'initiation', it is meant to exclude force used in self-defense against those initiating force. Furthermore, 'defensive' force is force exercised in proportion to the original violation.

It has so far never been successfully refuted that, given that this one rule is strictly enforced throughout a given society i.e. the non-aggression principle, no other outcome than large-scale peace and prosperity would result.

In spite of these claims and in spite of a lack of evidence to refute them and all the evidence in the world showing the initiation of force to be the one common denominator to all forms of theft and physical violence, the practical, consistent application of such a principle is nevertheless lacking in so-called civilized countries. Tracing any cause-and-effect relationship between the initiation of force and a lack of peace and prosperity is not some highfalutin activity reserved for academics or experts. It is a matter of common-sense.

The difficulty, however, in changing one's ways so that one abstains from such initiation of force, still needs to be overcome.

When looking at promises by politicians, it can be all too easy to slip into the same old habit of excusing some for violating the NAP, because it is 'for protection of the citizen, or consumer'. For this to have weight and any traction, politicians and their protected cronies, who benefit from such exceptions, must emphasize every-day problems as having little or nothing to do with their actions but rather are just an inevitable part of being human. You will often hear claims of 'greed' and 'corruption'. Whilst it's certainly the case that these are lamentable traits, what isn't mentioned is the only conditions under which unsuspecting individuals are rendered victims of such human characteristics.

On closer inspection it turns out that in spite of claims that human greed and corruption will lead to extinction of all life on planet earth, there may just be factors not commonly brought to the average person's attention. Doesn't it, for instance, depend on who's property the greedy are being greedy with? Doesn't it depend on how much power over your person and property you yield to those you already largely agree are only human and thus unable to withstand temptation to sell your representation to the highest bidder?

When looking at promises made by those who expect to be held to a different moral standard of account, by those who will tell you it is 'a necessary evil' that they be excused from prosecution for violating the NAP, what do you see?

Some will see a politician/businessman threatening to initiate force to protect consumers (from the greedy in the market and the corrupt within the State).

Others will see a politician/businessman threatening to initiate force to protect cronies (by creating artificial barriers to market entry).

How many will see a politician/businessman threatening to initiate force?