i dont know. this is not where the inconsistency lies. pointing out where NAP works great does not sheds light on the part where it does not work well.
Then, where is it inconsistent?
If declaration of NAP can be considered an act of aggression. which i say it can, and you say it can't. Are we not done with this discussion yet? we are clearly not gonna agree on this.
Yes, I thought I had explained it in terms even a relativist like yourself could grasp. By saying that no man has the right to initiate the use of force, I am stating that I believe no man (myself included) has the right to throw the first punch. By throwing the first punch, the aggressor is stating (by his actions) that he believes that every man (himself included) has that right. By responding to force with force, I am therefore acting within my own belief system (responding is, by definition, not initiating) and within his (all men, after all, have the right to use violence).
By saying that no man has the right to initiate the threat of force, I am stating that I believe no man (myself included) has the right to threaten to throw the first punch. By threatening to throw the first punch, the aggressor is stating (by his actions) that he believes that every man (himself included) has that right. By responding to the threat of force with the threat of force, I am therefore acting within my own belief system (responding is, by definition, not initiating) and within his (all men, after all, have the right to threaten violence).
So where am I being inconsistent?
and [to] answer your question: yes lets compare them.
Excellent, so you will work with me to abolish the state, so that we can set our two societies side by side without interference?
no, im happy with the state. thank you.
So you're
not willing to try them out, side by side.
so sad.
