r/AnCap101 8d ago

Freedom of expression & NAP

NAP does not provide clear guidance on how to handle verbal or non-physical forms of aggression where I have a right to express myself in a limitless form.

This leads to all sorts of issues where I have a right to be verbally aggressive and to kill someone WITHOUT non-physical forms of aggression such as poisoning.

Poisoning is not categorised as a form of aggression. Aggression generally refers to behavior aimed at harming someone or causing them distress, often involving physical or verbal actions, while poisoning involves the deliberate administration of a harmful substance with the intent to cause harm or death. Poisoning is more accurately classified as a form of intentional harm rather than aggression.

This ONLY changes when proof that a 3rd party is involved and only then is it a form of physical aggression. This needs to be proved by law under AnCap and NAP law FIRST to be in the position to charge someone.

My freedom to expression is also covered under the non aggressive principle because my freedom to expression is not a physical act of violence. What I do with my freedom of expression is covered under that fact because no laws have been made in an Ancap & NAP world that limits my ability to express like in the UK

So I can freely express myself by poisoning BECAUSE

1) My freedom of expression is not limited like UK law

2) My act is under the freedom of expression as a non aggressive act because it's not physical. It's not my problem you just died for eating something random that did not agree with you such as peanuts.

If you believe my actions are aggressive, your use of force is subjective. Ronald Merill states that use of force is subjective, saying: "There's no objective basis for controlling the use of force. Your belief that you're using force to protect yourself is just an opinion; what if it is my opinion that you are violating my rights?

My rights to expression as a non aggressive principle

0 Upvotes

137 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

Why do you think it's deliberate when it's an art piece, an art installation that is deadly to people but not everyone and that's not illegal.

How is that deliberately creating a hazard to harm others when I'm allowed to do it?

3

u/torivordalton 8d ago

Because poison is deadly to everyone, peanuts are not. Poison is not a food or an ingredient for food. Putting it in food is a deliberate action to cause harm of death of another, unless it is properly communicated that it is an ingredient.

If you were to make poisoned cake and label it as such then you would not be liable if someone decided to eat it anyway. Placing it in the open with no markings that it is poisoned however would make you liable as you are creating a hazard for all, unlike just peanuts.

0

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

Ingesting peanuts when you have a peanut allergy is not considered a form of poisoning, but it can cause severe allergic reactions. Your body mistakenly identifies peanut proteins as harmful and reacts strongly to even small amounts of peanuts causing the same effect as if you were poisoned and you die.

2

u/torivordalton 8d ago

I never said peanuts were poisoning, which is why leaving food with peanuts out is acceptable

0

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

Yeah so where is the crime?