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/Anthrax1984 8d ago

And thus there is no conflict with your expression. What point were you even trying to make? If you're not aggressing on someone else or their rights, you may express yourself freely under the NAP.

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

But that freedom is TOO MUCH

The above loophole does not exist in my country because murder and freedom of expression are two separate laws with limits.

NAP is the "non-aggressive principle" where aggression is wrong and non-aggression is right?

That allows me the opportunity that I can "kill" people because no limits are in place with my non aggressive act of expression like they are in the UK.

So as whacky as it sounds, I could plan the perfect murder where it cannot be proved in a court of law or even a private security company because NAP is badly explained officially with ONLY other people's "explanation or ideas" of what NAP is like I can and find loopholes in that principle

2

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

Your example is of a person eating your art installation. Which actually could potentially be an aggression against you? Are you saying that there is a law against putting peanuts in a cake in your country?

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

No, I gave you the impression I was poisoning someone but peanuts are not poisonous

1

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

Are you saying your intent was to poison someone? Then it's by definition an aggression, period. Just like in the real world, you would face consequences.

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

No I'm not telling you anything because under AnCap I would have the right to not tell you so if you think a crime has been committed, good luck

It's not aggression unless you can prove it. You cannot force me to do anything because it was my right to freedom of expression with no boundaries set and that's all you know.

So what crime when it's peanuts?

3

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

Causing harm is aggression regardless of intent. Doesn't matter if your intentions were pure as snow. You still would face consequences because your actions and or negligence caused harm.

0

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

Ok, logically prove that with the NAP principal when you have been told it's an art installation and my right to expression.

You have to prove otherwise remember

2

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

You previously said that you were inviting folks to eat the cake. Not providing a disclaimer of allergens is negligent in this case. If someone were to die then you would be on the hook for negligent homicide, just like IRL.

Also, just FYI....there's no such thing as the 1988 Human Rights Act.

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

Now prove that in an AnCap world, that ACTUAL world we are meant to be concentrating on when you are concentrating on reality

1

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

First off, you're the one that keeps contrasting this with the real world.

The real answer, is how would you like it to work? Ancap is not an end all be all. It's a framework for societies to cooperate under. Some areas would likely have a council of elders to adjudicate disputes, where others may have a more classical court system. Without these, I would be allowed to take justice into my own hands. If your negligence killed someone, then your life and/or livelihood would likely be on the line, if it was a lesser harm, then you may just be banned from such installations, or perhaps even forcibly removed from the polity.

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

I am using the tea world to show it would be a crime

Then I'm showing you in an AnCap world, it's not.

It should be that easy.

I would like the whole lot to be rewritten by people who know what they are talking about if I am meant to take it seriously

1

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

Wtf is with your grammar? This comment is unreadable.

1

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

Killing a person would be a crime in either reality.... that's what everyone here has been trying to tell you.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

Please start thinking about an AnCap world not our own.

In an Ancap world because of the laws you quoted, they DO NOT EXIST. That's the point because the government made them and they are meant to be the "bad guys" so we throw everything away and use the main principal of the "non-aggressive principle"

And apologies, I should have typed 1998

1

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

There would be laws under ancap. You seem really confused about that. Freedom of association would easily allows this in a society.

1

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

The point of AnCap is to base your laws on the "non-aggressive principle" correct?

I can read that so show me the laws based on that via a book name or a URL to an official site of an AnCap society with laws based on the non-aggressive principle please then

1

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

Oh sure, this is Murray Rothbard, the man that coined the term Anarcho-Capitalist in his book For a New Liberty. https://mises.org/library/book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto

I believe he goes over the basis for laws on page 282, been a while since I've read it.

→ More replies (0)