WARNING: This is a strictly philosophical question for discussion purposes!
I run a small philosophy blog at AssafKoss.com, where I raise questions about life, and share my personal adventures. Your podcast has really helped me see more clearly into issues that I felt were not solved within me, at least verbally. Thank you.
I strongly agree with the NAP and Self-Ownership ideals. Still, I intuit that something very important is missing from that equation. I call it Responsibility, and it refers to all the conflicts that are without evident ownership or aggression. From time to time, I hear you use that term, too.
(I have a thread about this in your forums.)
If I own a tree, then I am the one that people will hold accountable, if there is any problem related to that tree, such as a dead branch falling on another person. I am considered ultimately responsible.
Responsibilities, however, can be divided and managed very fluidly. For example, a mother and father share responsibility over their child, and mostly ignore the idea that they both own their child, separately. If either were to treat their child as property, then power-struggles and abuse would ensue (which does happen in many homes, sadly.)
There is a price to sharing responsibility, though. "Throwing" responsibility on each other. Never the less, I feel that it is better to negotiate responsibility, than to enforce ownership. It creates less conflict, in day to day life. I suspect that it is how we all normally intuit relationships.
Does this issue make any sense to you? How do you define responsibility in your own life? How do you criticize those who avoid their responsibility, even though they do not aggress towards others? Such as happens in the tree example.
Thanks for all the help you provide!
Assaf Koss, 26, Israel.