Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

442

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The NAP is an ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. "Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.

So, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will say that the NAP applies to humans.

Does it apply to animals?

If not, name the trait.

If so, go vegan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle The NAP is an ethical stance that aggression is inherently wrong. "Aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. So, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists will say that the NAP applies to humans. Does it apply to animals? If not, name the trait. If so, go vegan.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (35).
[–] • 0 pt

Yeah sometimes.

When my country (USA) went to war with Vietnam & Korea, it was to stop them from adopting new social contracts for themselves that were seen as a direct threat to the future of our own social contract. Killing them suddenly became justified and our solders did just that.

Africans were rounded up like cattle and shipped to the Americas with many getting dumped in the Atlantic along the way. But their enslavement was justified since they didn't belong to the same social contract. Even when freed, lynching and legal forms of discrimination were justified because blacks didn't belong to the social contract whites operated under.

Even today, Israel & Palestine share the same geographical space but follow two different social contracts and the end result is decades of them murdering each other.