i am super happy that i found the nap (non-aggression principle). it was the missing piece between aggression and pacifism that reconciled the positions of my ww2 grandfather and hippie (but ironically abusive) father. i recognize, however, that the nap can and will only even be a consideration once a person has climbed high enough up maslow's hierarchy. imo, it's unreasonable to expect a starving person to not steal bread - though you may still consider it immoral (i do). the greater immorality lies in the person who is not starving but steals bread, anyway. so here we have the problem of binary thinking when a continuum of sorts seems more appropriate
(i need something here - supporting/elaborating/expanding - but i'm lazy and don't have it flushed out, sorry)
anyhoo. when that institution of violence know as the state steps in, it undermines the nap of one individual to build up the base of the other. in other words, you're forcing the person who produced bread to now have to worry about his security
higher up on maslow's needs lies a ditty known as charity. this is where individuals give out bread to the starving willingly. so whereas, when the state redistributes bread we are destroying pyramids, with this method we are placing the capstone
now i just need to find someone smart to write a treatise on appropriate methods (defensive violence, ostracism, etc - and possibly sompin' about laws and mores) for each level, and interactions of individuals on different levels - while respecting the individual
course, if i could finish stefbot's (stefan molyxlzxjcajneu) UPB (universally preferable behavior) it might be in there
No comments:
Post a Comment