[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.