wilderness: ...but a question to all that like to label a political philosophy with additional signifiers, ie. thick and thin. It's one reason I don't like the terms. The other is the 'group-think' that making such classes as thin and thick settles into. It offers no insight into the dynamic nature of individuals that on one issue might be thin and on another only thick. At it's most self-admitted near absurd, thus not wholly impossible, position, such terms might be a form of divide and conquer due to the underlying dynamics that are glossed over as being non-existent and how a political philosophy is somehow labeling who I am outside of politics doesn't make sense.
...but a question to all that like to label a political philosophy with additional signifiers, ie. thick and thin.
It's one reason I don't like the terms. The other is the 'group-think' that making such classes as thin and thick settles into. It offers no insight into the dynamic nature of individuals that on one issue might be thin and on another only thick. At it's most self-admitted near absurd, thus not wholly impossible, position, such terms might be a form of divide and conquer due to the underlying dynamics that are glossed over as being non-existent and how a political philosophy is somehow labeling who I am outside of politics doesn't make sense.
+1. These width prefixes have long been an embarrassment to read.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Wilderness,
I've never actually considered the grammatical implications of the term, I'm not an English expert (or even a native speaker) so I won't argue that it may be incorrect as to its actual meaning, however it seems like you get it it, so its not a complete flub. Its isn't meant to alter or influence the meaning of political philosophy. (Also, even more amazing, you and I seem to be understanding one another, weird...)
BrainPolice,
Thanks for the welcome. Its a pretty divided club though.
"If a family member is threatened (but you aren't in anyway) is it justified to violate the NAP? "
Threatened in what sense? physically or verbally? if an attacker has a weapon and is coming towards you in an aggressive manner it's reasonable in certain contexts to assume he intends to attack you.If the violence is obvious and has just occurred then yes of course you can intervene on others behalves.
"Let me put it differently: There is an evil dictator who is going to kill 1 Million people, and you have the opportunity to shoot him (consequence free, in terms of your own safety/well being). To do so would violate the NAP, but he obviously shows no regard for the NAP. Is it morally justified, or even a violation of the NAP, to take his life to prevent the life of 1 million others from being taken? "
Using Kinsella's Estoppel I'd say it's acceptable.He's commited himself to the view that rights are irrelevant or he can ignore them thus he cannot object to the same treatment.
"What about the situation where someone is a past murderer, and you come across him (he is no threat to you at that moment)."
has he been punished for the murder?
If so then I would say no.If not then yes if it seems the right thing to do and you would rather do this than help some other agency catch him.
" What if this man murdered your family, are you in violation of the NAP to take his life?"
well assuming your family have said because of similiar incidents that they would want you to avenge them then yes.
If they were pacifist or could be assumed to be this would not be self defence as they would not have wanted this as a punishment.
" Are you justified in taking the land back in this case?"
yes
"Are you justified in killing the son?"
I think so.
"Lets extrapolate this further. 100 years from the point of enslavement your descendants are still working for the original enslaver's descendants; is it still justifiable for your family to take back your property (assuming for the moment that slavery isn't the moral issue)?"
Yes.Criminals should never get to keep stolen goods.
"At what point does an illegitimate claim to property become legitimate, if ever?"
Walter Block talks about this in relation to Reparations .
Never ,however there must be proof that the stolen property belongd truly to X thus there is a time limit on this but it in no way makes stolen property just .
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.