Message from @Poptarts
Discord ID: 465746273031421952
The joke is
the joke is politics
At the point you try to intervene, the outcome becomes your responsibility.
Thus, violating the NAP.
in some cases that is true... because you can wrecklessly intervene such as in car accidents where you may potentially inflict further damage on someone with broken bone, severe internal injuries, etc
not necessarily violating the NAP tho, bcuz a lot of it stems from intent
The trolley test is essentially a 'Kobayashi Maru'
There's not a scenario that is a 'win'.
yeah
And in the wise words of Rush, If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
because aggression means essentially initiation of force will malicious or threatening intent as far as im concerned
The tricky part to having a principle such as the NAP as the sole standard though is that any moral pillar can be perverted to become something it's not meant to be.
ya but he cannot be held responsible for doing nothing ... especially if hes like hyperventalating from the situation and stuf.... he could simple just be frozen in fear and shock ... wouldnt be able to blame him for not doing something either if it wasnt his responsibility to begin with
well itd be hell of a lot better and more clear and definitive than some foggy nebular, fluffly social contract
I mean, in a way, yes.
That's the joke. He cannot be held responsible for doing nothing, so he chooses to do nothing because otherwise he could be held accountable
social contract can mean literally anything.... NAP means non-aggression principle
It *is* a joke afterall
The NAP IS a social contract.
If it's an order by which people live and die, whether they've agreed to it or not, it's a social contract.
i could agree with that.... but it could be enforced more easily and also actually be codified into the foundations of actual valid, explicit social contracts too
so we can replace the foggy idea of a social contract with the NAP ... and then current contract laws/conventions, explicit legal contracts, etc are layered on top of that
What's so foggy about the current paradigm?
whats foggy about a non-existent contract? a contract that can literally change w/o you even knowing it?
Your proposition is to change one non-existent contract with another.
kind of self-evident
no, just a very vague idea with a more definitive one
The NAP as a single pillar is actually far more vague than you seem to think.
It's one of those concepts that works well on paper, but in practice...
the NAP is already pretty much illegal to break .... except for many "protected" classes of people like police currently etc who can freely break it w/ impunity
its not a pillar but a foundation
nor singular either. .... itd be like a software stack... the NAP the bottom most layer and everything else on top of it
Alright, let's disect 'protected classes'.
nobody says (at least not me) the NAP and ONLY the NAP ..... maybe some fringey elements would advocate for that ... fact is that ppl can agree to be governed in a private system of law
A private system of law...?
As in, like, laws that different classes can agree to on their own, independent of each other?
But how do you explain for this?
its getting late dude... im not going to get into this with you tonight.... but obviously government officials, politicians, police etc are most certainly a different class of people with all sorts of rights and privileges that us "ordinary" people dont have
yeah it kind of already happens with people doing business with each other from among countless jurisdictions
While I do think you have a partial point