Zack Bass wrote: > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> What part of "INITIATION" seems to be giving you the most trouble? >>> >>> >> The part where you begin to initiate force >> rather than defend yourself against it. >> >> > > I never do that. > "DEFENSE" is not the only thing that NAP allows! Duh. If one guy > INITIATES Force and then stops, and the other guy GETS EVEN, that is > certainly not Defense but it is not Initiation. The First Guy started it. > You never "get even"; you always end up odd. And you will always interpret the other guy's "getting even" as an initiation of force. (See, for instance, your constantly ravening neighbors.)
You don't get to be judge in your own case; you're too likely to rule in your own favor. (Even government judges sometimes recuse themselves if their self-interest is too blatantly at issue. Their reputation for objectivity might suffer.) Last but not least, I do not recall anywhere in my extensive reading of the literature which upholds NAP where force is ever justified by anything save defense. But perhaps my memory fails with age. Pointer? G.
