NAP vs Natural LawfareSeptember 30 2010, 02:34:14 UTC
NAP supposes a definition of what "Aggression" is, and that doesn't come for free. If understood properly (pun intended), it's all about Propertarianism. But that also doesn't come for free. Lots of Propertarians say "NAP" without realizing that they are making lots of non-trivial assumptions about it, then wonder why they are not being understood.
The notion of Natural Law is an easier starting point on which to agree: ultimately, it is the notion that Law is not a completely subjective matter, but that there exist objective knowable principles that people may discover, some non-arbitrary law that is distinguished amongst all imaginable laws as being more efficient/desirable/simple, a Schelling point that allows to optimize the costs and benefits of finding and enforcing law. Denying the existence of Natural Law is but closing the debate and affirming that nothing matters and that force is the only valid argument.
We're in total agreement on the role of technology. As for the "black magic" undertones of my presentations, I've remarked as much in my Leiden speech.
The notion of Natural Law is an easier starting point on which to agree: ultimately, it is the notion that Law is not a completely subjective matter, but that there exist objective knowable principles that people may discover, some non-arbitrary law that is distinguished amongst all imaginable laws as being more efficient/desirable/simple, a Schelling point that allows to optimize the costs and benefits of finding and enforcing law. Denying the existence of Natural Law is but closing the debate and affirming that nothing matters and that force is the only valid argument.
We're in total agreement on the role of technology. As for the "black magic" undertones of my presentations, I've remarked as much in my Leiden speech.
Reply
Leave a comment