This isnt a courtroom...jn has thrown NAP out there...then defined it narrowly...
I didn't say it was a courtroom. I'm simply pointing out that pretending as though terms of art can be defined generally is absurd. Legal application was merely one example.
Whereas i define it as is...
Using the nazi flag example...i put to you a libertarian would not do that, whereas jn sees no force or threat of force therefore he is free to put a nazi flag near a Jewish persons house
(Just an example...)
You are free to define aggression any way you'd like. Just as you are free to define employee any way you'd like. However, you are not allowed to define aggression for the purposes of NAP any way you'd like, just as you aren't allowed to define employee any way you'd like in a courtroom. Or obtuse any way you'd like when discussing triangles. Or any of the other countless terms of art that have a specific, technical definition.
This is, literally, the first paragraph of the NAP Wikipedia article:
The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership.
You act as though we're making this shite up on the fly. In NAP, aggression has a specific definition. Just as in geometry, obtuse has a specific definition. To act otherwise is nothing more than setting up your own straw-man.
To directly address your hypothetical, placing a flag on my property is not a breach of NAP, unless it was it was somehow connected to something with more substance (i.e. "the day after you see this flag go up, I'm going to kill your children if you don't do X). Trespassing and placing the flag on the Jewish person's property would be a breach of NAP. Now, would placing it on my property be "aggressive," particularly "passive aggressive"? Sure. Is it "aggressive" as defined by NAP? No, it isn't.
This post was edited on 1/9 at 5:37 pm