[johnrgrace]

Look at history, 150 years ago to be allowed to form a corporation you needed a legislature to pass an act after they believed that your enterprise was in the public good. Being able to form a limited liability company is a right granted by law and subject to limits.

Not that people pay attention today but if you read your states laws there are limits to what corporation can do, be named, etc.

[germandiago]

the limit should be not causing damage to others. Regulations just put a higher barrier to enterpreneurs.

It is not a good idea to regulate all the time when in fact every regulation could effectively be a wall.

[bantunes]

Why the Non-Aggression Principle is useless as a moral guideline http://dbzer0.com/blog/why-the-non-aggression-principle-is-u...

[germandiago]

I just went quickly through the article.

The article treats this principle basically as ambiguous.

So this principle could be not perfectly defined for some, or disputable, according to the article.

However, you miss the point.

Saying that this principle is just not strictly defined (according to the article) does not make it a reason to put it to the trash directly. You have to compare to the status quo.

For me what the article supports (implicitly) behind this reasoning would be that the status quo (coaction and violence by governors) is better: hey, just proceed with coaction because NAP is not perfect? I think there is a lot of consensus on things that are wrong that we would all accept. Consider it a subset of NAP. The bigger the subset, the better for everyone.

In fact, there is a very clear principle, at least in my opinion that can define things way less ambiguously: it exists the negative or natural law and positive law.

For me, basically, negative rights should be inviolable and positive rights are not rights as themselves in my opinion: none of us will ever have infinite capacity or power for an arbitrary action, and in doing so you will violate the negative rights of others: I want to date this girl (but she does not), I want to go to Harvard (but I need to spoil others and disregard their academic CVs and skip the line), I want to have 10000 usd per month (but my employer built the business and won't pay that)... no, those are not rights. Those are things we earn by ourselves or figure out how to do.

[aeternum]

How does this principle work when two sides have differing opinions on what constitutes the greater aggression (IE abortion where a woman's rights over her body are up against the question of when human life begins)

Vaccines.. at what level of disease severity should the government forcibly inject the entire populace with a vaccine to ensure that no one can aggress on another by infecting them (on purpose or accidentally).

If one jumbo jet passenger has a severe peanut allergy and other opens a bag of peanuts, is it an act of aggression?

[germandiago]

If it is you who voted down without replying it must mean I am right. Long live NAP man. There are many of us who are civilicized people. We do not want to harm anyone or have excuses all the time to do it.

The closer to that ideal, the better.

[germandiago]

1. I could be against abortion but I would try to convince someone to not do it. Never force them. 2. this is a trick question in the sense that it is true we can damage others. But it is also true you can damage yourself with a vaccine right? So I do not see a reason for anyone to force u. There is a reasonable risk here on both sides. What I will not do is to get aggressive if someone does not let me in somewhere. After all it is a fact I havr higher chances of transferring the disease and due to my conscious choice I try to not damage myself but also not actively damage others.

3. I do not think a person with a severe allergy would not inform the crew or just avoid the flight or set herself in special and guaranteed conditions. We are not kids. We DO know better than all these paternalist governments that treat us as idiots what to do.I have far more confidence in people than in people who has to dictate coactively to others what to do with no consequence all the time.

Freedom is responsibility my friend.

If you want paternalism you can pay yours I can figure out how to deal with my stuff and not damaging others on my way.

What you cannot do is to try others realize your view of the world. You convince them or leave them alone and let them do their own way. I think it is the more fair position by far.

With my view you can have all these things you wish and I do not need to participate in them. I do not want any of those benefits either. If I want one, I can pay for it or join.

With other views this is not even possible. So this way of doing it is just superior in my view.

But I see many people afraid of letting people choose. Instead what u have is a small amount choosing for the rest with evil incentives on top of it. A much worse alternative in fact. And one where people always blame others of their own problems.