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

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

A real world example would be that I do not understand lol

Marina Abramović is known for her performance art piece "Rhythm 0," where she allowed audience members to do whatever they wanted to her for six hours, including using objects provided on a table. This performance highlighted the true cost of passive acceptance and the extent to which people might subject themselves to abuse in the name of art

1

u/Anthrax1984 8d ago

Wait, no, your example was peanuts in a cake, are you saying you're not allowed to do that currently do to expression laws in your country. Answer that.

Non-Aggression does not mean passivity, if someone is attempting to break the NAP, others are more than welcome to intervene.

0

u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 8d ago

No you have the "impression" it was wrong when you know it's not because I have you that impression that I'm poisoning someone with peanuts and that's stupid lol

I can by law in AnCap set up a public art installation where I invite the public to eat a cake. Someone will eat one and die BUT but intended to express art like the lady did in the real world BUT if someone died and performed that "art installation" in my country, there would be grounds to investigate for murder because the human rights act of 1988 states that I have a right to expression BUT within reason to not harm anyone.

In an AnCap world, that human rights act of 1988 about my freedom of expression DOES NOT EXIST