You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: All Aboard The Utopianwagon
I understand where you are coming from, but is it all embrassing and glorious as you said.
Coming from philosophy, ZAP has its loop holes, it is impossible to apply consistently in practice; respectively, consequentialist or deontological criticisms, and inconsistency criticisms. Libertarian academic philosophers have noted the implausible results consistently applying the principle yields: for example, Professor Matt Zwolinski notes that, because pollution necessarily violates the NAP by encroaching (even if slightly) on other people's property, consistently applying the NAP would prohibit driving, starting a fire, and other activities necessary to the maintenance of industrial society. So where does it get us to.
you can't APPLY ZAP...in the sense that you can't force someone else to do it.
That would be initiation of force...
ZAP is not something you DO...it's something you Do NOT do.
so..you can either be an aggressor...or not.
up to you.
The ZAP is shown to be pretty much a shallow principle. When limited to actual physical force, it’s superseded and made obsolete by moral systems which can explain when force is justified or not. When extended to concepts which are not immediately intuitive, its subjective nature quickly devolves it to shouting matches which can only be settled by a homogeneous system of courts and enforcement agencies. A de-facto state.
To me, when someone explains that according to the NAP, this or that is wrong, they mostly sound like “This or that is wrong, because I say so.”
I like shallow principles. They are easy to understand. Easy to apply I've noticed that DEEP principles tend to cause drowning.