[MD] NAP

[blue-jay maple]

Ron:
> Nick,
> The question is murder right or wrong, you concede that there are 
> mitigating circumstances ie. self defense, so it is not a simple 
> yes/no answer as you admit. there is also capital punishment
> to consider, euthenasia.
> demanding a yes/no answer to an admittedly grey area is unfair and 
> a tactical tool.

Nick:
Ron you keep missing an important concept:  initiation.  Who started the 
physical aggression.  Self-defense is not initiation of physical coercion.
As for capital punishment.  That's murder.  And euthenasia, it depends on 
context.
  Capital punishment though is an inquiry of repercussion.  That's after the 
initiation of physical coercion.  The "inquiry into repercussion" is a grey area.  But 
who initiated physical coercion is not a grey area.  Murders can be hard to find 
and may not be found, we already know a murder took place.  If the initiation of 
physical coercion has taken place then a crime has taken place.  The law steps in 
and an investigation is underway.  When the criminal is caught then an inquiry into 
repercussions is sought to discover what repercussions are to take place against 
the criminal.
NAP and natural law of human nature is showing what happened.  Defining the innocent 
from the criminal.  What justice does afterwards is hotly debated.  But that isn't about the 
NAP anymore.  That's after the fact of known initiation of physical coercion.

Ron:
> Personally I feel murder is wrong, but I think in self defence, 
> capital punishment and
> euthenasia it is "justifyable". as well as facing combatants in a 
> combat situation.

Nick:
I think you are arguably correct.  I personally am against capital punishment, but 
that isn't really within the scope of any universal standard.  It's more my personal 
opinion.  I think there are other ways instead of committing capital punishment.  I 
don't think it really helps anybody, but that might be a whole other topic.

Ron:
> Am I a murderer Nick. In some eyes I am, in others I am not.

Nick:
I don't think you are Ron.  I think you are trying to be civil and reason through this.  
And I thank you for that.  :-)

Ron:
> That is what I question about your NAP.

Nick:
As I said, the NAP is about not initiating physical coercion.  Self-defense is after 
somebody initiates coercion and you have ever right to do this.  There is a argued 
concept called "estoppel".  What it means it once somebody initiates physical coercion, they 
commit a crime, then once the criminal is apprehended they are estopped from making 
any comments on their repercussions.  But justice would need some degree of proportionality so 
it has to be "fair" and "just" in how a criminal is handled after caught.  The criminal is estopped and loses 
all natural rights since the criminal doesn't recognize natural rights.  That's what estoppel means.  
But this is all after the fact decision making processes and is not about the NAP which is the principle 
to not be a criminal, to not initiate physical coercion.  
So you are not a criminal Ron and you may have good arguments about repercussions.  That's 
a hotly debated area, as I mentioned.  The natural law and NAP is not in question at that point.  What 
is in question at that point is what do we do with the criminal now?

Nick 

 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

>


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com