NAP

Filip Olszewski
1st Point: The NAP given a definition of 'initiation of violence/threats' is a non-functional definition in this context.  Initiation, violence, and threats are all subjective, based on who is perceptiving what. As a third party we can't see and measure these things objectively. You could not differentiate defense from aggression using the NAP or even if you could, you could not apply them to anything you could observe, it would simply be what you believe is aggression or defense.

Let's start with applying a definition of initiated violence on the person being assaulted. We have to say that it is their -preference- to not be physically engaged in that way, at that time, with that person, etc including all the other circumstances, and this is what causes the activity to be 'aggressive' on the part of the other person initiating it. If you stop right here and only look at the person being engaged, then you can conclude it is aggressive and be done with it. But what about the other person? Clearly, this other person also has preferences, and those preferences include physically engaging another person in a particular way under certain circumstances. To this other person, if I were to interveine and stop this interaction, I would be aggressing against them. Opinions of who started what are just that, opinions. The 'initiator' of any 'violence' is going to be based on who you are talking to. Different people are going to interpret themselves or others as aggressors, defenders, or objects they are free to manipulate. There is no way, using the NAP, that a third party can decide who is right or wrong.

I'm not defending the ability for one person to assault another. I'm saying that morality and/or the NAP is not necessary or effective for deciding how or why each of us does what we do given a variety of circumstances. If I saw one person raping another person (this by definition assumes that I can effectively assess that the situation is one will imposing against another unwillful, which is highly likely given the circumstances) and I had the means to stop this from happening, I would do so because I don't like it when people get raped. I would feel good about saving a fellow human from such a terrible event, and whatever force I would need to apply against the attacker to stop them, I'd enjoy that as well. I would imagine most humans are the same in this way. This comes from our nature and not from moral principles.

2nd Point: The NAP has been used to justify market regulation. One example, claiming that by not properly labeling a food item as a GMO then fraud is committed. The customer may not be forced to buy the product, but when they are falsely informed of the GMO status of a product they buy, then they are being aggressed against.