I see this Terminological Error as mostly on the Libertarian Party’s War Doves
Hello again other humans. I am your Cheshire CT neighborhood fiscally conservative and socially humanist independent thinker, Perkino. Basically I have been reflecting for quite some time on what I make of the Non-Aggression Principle. I don’t think I need to type the definition by words that WordPress will deem as part of the word count. And frankly my rationale is… well, look at my image choice above please and thank you.
Aggression as defined by the English Language vs Aggression as defined by Antiwar Activists
Eh… here goes something that might cost me custody of the Cheshire Libertarian Town Committee 😂 which I built online by my own Facebook account. I hope this case I am going to make will not but I suspect that it will. Anyhow, time for utmost intellectual honesty.
So basically the only thing stopping me from signing the aptly named ‘Libertarian Pledge’ is that it plays by a purely pacifistic definition of ‘aggression’. Here is their made-up definition;
- Any use of force to achieve any political or social goal
Whereas…. if you look at the mainstay definition that currently all of Western Civilization, the only systemically libertarian and morally civilized culture in humanity, you see (or at least I see) an intrinsically different definition.
- Unprovoked use of forceful action to dominate or to destroy another
Unlike the LP War-dove definition of aggression; the Western Cultural definition of aggression accounts not just for reality itself but also for a few other Western Cultural definitions. Two of them relevant to the focus of this online diary of mine.
- Right of Self-Defense: The right of the individual or the nation to use force to defend the lives of self and of other individuals or foreign societies, including the use of deadly force.
- Intervention: The behavior of using hinderance, obstruction and/or modification to change a process and/or a future.
What Does the NAP Allow & Forbid by Western Cultural Definition of the word ‘aggression’?
Okay, let’s start with what’s allowed.
Basically every lifestyle that does not involve unprovoked actions of intentional violence is allowed. No matter how revealing the attire, no matter how risky the form of athleticism, no matter how little known the morality.
What’s also allowed under this meaning of the NAP is buying raw bits for crafting and for resale of them as artsy crafts. Another economic behavior allowed under this dialect of the NAP is organized religions and secular moralities peacefully competing with each other for subscribers in accordance with the laws of supply and demand. Well, peacefully until someone does unprovoked acts of force with the intent of dominating and/or destroying.
Which leads into what’s not allowed.
Sexual violence against people for dressing revealingly for their free time is existentially not allowed. Another thing that’s not allowed is medically damaging actions against one’s own kids and/or against one’s own pets. And yes, my membership of the Austin Petersen freedom ninja army opens my eyes to legions of stories about pet abuse that do sicken me, greatly.
Now; time for puzzle games!
Puzzle games? Yeah, allow me to make up names for the purposes of these puzzle games, without care for if the names are real or not.
- Derpy decides he is going to hijack a construction worker’s bulldozer to tear down the office of a computer game modding club because he cannot understand how PC game mods can possibly qualify as a legit hobby. Has Derpy been provoked into needing to use force? No. Has Derpy used force? Yes. Was Derpy using force to pull off a political goal? No. Was Derpy using force to pull off a social goal? Yes. Was the social goal to dominate and destroy another? Yes.
- Jorgon is walking down the sidewalk on her way home from her town’s local coffee shop. She is right about to hit the button to be allowed by the traffic lights to safely cross the street when some sporty dude attacks her. His goal regarding Jorgon is to sexually assault her so hard as to literally kill her, and Jorgon’s defense against this is to whip out a huge pocket knife and decapitate her attacker with it. Now, has Jorgon been provoked into needing to use force? Yes. Has Jorgon used force? Yes. Was Jorgon using force to pull off a political goal? No. Was Jorgon trying to pull off a social goal? Yes. Was that social goal to dominate or destroy another? No!
No more puzzle games. Time for wrap up
Basically I am someone you can expect to tell the Libertarian Pledge to go f— itself in its current wording. Primarily when you’re talking about a tyrannical nation whose regime has totally nothing (or almost nothing) to do with free market capitalism. And when you’re talking about a nation of this nature posing even a latent threat of future attack on American civilians, so too do I keep telling the LP pledge’s current wording to lick a d—. However, that’s not to say that the wording can’t be changed. In fact, based on the terminological content about Western Cultural definitions, I say the LP pledge can and must be re-worded. Into something like this.
- I certify that I oppose the unprovoked use of force to dominate or destroy any behaviorally harmless entity.
That’s all I got on the NAP. Byyyee!