I accept that I have no right to archate, and I will always aim to live up to that
..this is the conundrum (paradox?) of the NAP.
1/John and Tim live next door to each other.
2/ John is making sharp tools, Tim is gardening..
Tim notices John making sharp tools
3/ John invites his friend round. Tim is gardening.
John and his friend play with the sharp tools, and look over at Tims garden.
Tim is gardening..
At what point does Tim decide to act first , to avoid aggression against him (thus violating the NAP)
Obviously an oversimplification - but my point is, that by strictly abiding by the NAP, it means the aggressor to such a system WILL ALWAYS have the upper hand... which will ultimately lead to the end of the proponents of the NAP...
In a fight, the 'first in', gains a big advantage...
I haven't found a satisfactory answer to this conundrum.. yet...
As soon as he sees a credible threat. A credible threat is also aggression and archation. When is a threat credible? When someone has the ability and intention to archate. John and friend are making a credible threat if they begin approaching Tim and trespass, which means Tim has the right to act before they even get very close-- just as soon as they cross the property line. Tim wouldn't be acting first.
Acting in response to a credible threat doesn't violate the ZAP.
Now, granted, Tim may have to go to arbitration, but would a neutral arbitrator go against him? I'd take the chance if I were him.
So essentially the basics of common law, as it stands? (well it doesn't stand at all, right now- but you know what I mean).
Pretty much.
I live in the rural northwestern US. People carry guns and knives all the time here. Why are you creating this scenario where you appear to be implying that posession of a potential weapon is to be presumed a threat in and of itself?
Creating a scenario is necessary to make a picture - so as to highlight a point of discussing the principle, (of the post...)?
You're reading way too much in to it.
Whats scenario would you create , to discuss this..? ( I can't think of another one that's simple..)
You need to create a scenario that makes sense. If the neighbors had had an escalating argument for months about some mundane dispute, the sharpening of metal could actually seem sinister. But we live in the real world where people are actually usually fairly decent to one another, and government agents either commit or create the environment for the vast majority of violence. Like I said, around here, it's safe to assume that at least one in 10 is armed with some weapon or other, and we coincidentally have very low crime rates despite this and in marked contrast to the panicked proclamations of people who fear freedom.
...hence you reading too much into it!! - this was a hypothetical discussion about a principle!
lol