|
|
 Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Yeah, I got that. All my points still stand.
As a further point, what does it mean for an act of aggression to be illegitimate or invalid? Invalidity doesn't stop it. Illegitimacy doesn't taint it's consequences. It's like saying initiating violence is evil. Great, so what?
The points don't stand, though. They're addressing a strawman.
The use of illegitimacy in the NAP is to say that "if somebody initiates violence, this principle we espouse that we call the NAP says that the initiator is in the wrong; therefore you can defend yourself without fear of breaking the principle".
I don't personally espouse the NAP. I'm with Thad, the philosophy of self-interest is more descriptive and easier to understand. It also makes the NAP redundant. Like you, I was initially confused by the word "illegitimate". The NAP accidentally seems more abstract and inconsequential than intended.
|
Reply With Quote