RE: If Case Of An Emergency, This Is What You Do
That's a very good cause. Personally I like to keep things very simple(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor). Here is a quote from one of my old posts:
Aggression is wrong.
Might doesn't make anything right.
Anything that doesn't violate NAP isn't wrong and shouldn't be acted against.
Force can only be countered with equal or greater force.
Anybody has the right to agrees against the first breach of NAP as long as the following aggressions doesn't far exceed the original aggression.
Right permits might.
Acting against a first breach of NAP isn't a crime although it could be morally impure/ a sin.
Justice is more or less pointless after the damage has been done. Prevention is better than cure. The greatest justice is prevention of crime. A crime is an aggression against a person's life, liberty, property. Law & Order should under no circumstance should punish the second aggressor for anything that doesn't go above neutralizing a threat to a non-aggressor's life, liberty, property.Justice is pointless if it's a stable that is closed after the horse has escaped. The point of Justice is allowing framework for the Non-Aggressors to become immune to aggression.
These are the principles I stand by and I make my suggestions and take my stance based on this philosophy of NAP and prevention of Aggression. Just tech and some functions wouldn't work. There should be a "why?" based on an outlook into the future consequences of our present day actions.
You can read the full post here:https://steemit.com/steemit/@vimukthi/a-philosophical-and-economic-outlook-at-steemit-sbd-and-flagging-and-suggestions-for-a-better-future-based-on-positive
Basically "right to swing your stick" means anything that isn't bad is permitted. What is bad is the first violation of NAP.
Yeah, I tend to agree with the Non agression prinicple. However, you say that we should focus on preventing a crime which is good, but some people will commit crimes anyways. Are you saying that they should just get away with stealing a horse?
Please read this: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@vimukthi/what-is-law-what-is-justice-the-case-for-radical-violence-and-separation-of-law-and-morality
Your question almost became the reason to write it.
I read your piece, its a good one, and most of it makes sense but lets say you know who stole your horse (and he lives nearby) from the stable, what would you do then? Would you confront him about it or just forget about it? Or will there be a court system for this?
Second question, when you say that the majority can be learned to not commit crimes by prevention. It sounds good and all, but how would this be done? Parenting is enough, or more is needed?
I did another post touching the subject. I'll also be making a part 3 in the next few days: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@vimukthi/government-as-a-service-a-new-perspective-on-governments-and-taking-the-best-of-the-two-worlds-of-anarchy-and-minarchy
Great, i will check it out