alex_florida

marginalist -- Thank you all for great comments! I am glad that joined this Forum - much to learn...

square4 -- thank you for the reference to the previous thread with your OP - great questions - I am interested in answers too as well as the precise definition of damage or harm. I also think that being a proponent of NAP does not mean that you agree to never violate the NAP or private property, directly or indirectly. It means that you agree to the consequences of violating it. There may be situation when you choose (or even have no other choice) to violate it but you will have to compensate the person harmed for the losses you caused them. Therefore, for the practical matter it is important to evaluate in each particular situation if anybody is really harmed...

st434u-- This - delimitation of property. Thank you. ProfessionalTeabagger-- yes, probably your correction of the definition helpful because you can go from idea that breathing is not initiation of force in itself then

ProfessionalTeabagger -- >> The definitions of violence/ aggression given by the OP are not correct... in a way that can be made absurd>> Then can you please give your definition of violence/ aggression?

dsayers -- thank you, I also think that you can judged philosophical grounds only if you can act on the base of a free will, you have a choice ProfessionalTeabagger -- I agree, no free will here, no choice

ProfessionalTeabagger -- thank you, I like your rebuttal

Gold Donator -- I tried to go from the first principals, from self-ownership but what he tried to prove was that I would not be able to come to consistent universal philosophical NAP from it because of grey or border areas in the definition of a physical force or violence. Giving examples of breathing "into his lungs" or "sounding" into his ears without his consent. I tried to fend it off that no harm happened. I also tried to tell him that it was his choice to go to the park where people speak and "sound" into his ears (he could also plug his ears)... but, with breathing, you could not offer anybody to leave the Earth:) Finally, I just said that because we both (and all other people on the Earth) were breathing simultaneously, nobody could insist that the other guy invaded his property... but still these extreme, border cases cannot allow beg the question: where are the limits when the "uninvited" physical impact is really turns to violent force (or a real threat of its application)?

I probably had to explain why this statist asked this questions, the chain of arguments. 1) First, I mentioned NAP. 2) He asked: what is NAP? 3) My answer was somewhat: It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another 4) He asked: okay, but what do you mean when you talk about violence? what is your definition? 5) I tried to give the definition of violence (or coercion, or violent force) as an act of a human against a will or without permission of another human with respect to his person or property (to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something with the body or property...). 6) And then he brought this argument about touching his lungs (body) by my breathing with no permission from him. 7) I tried to fend off it by telling that there was no harm to his body from me breathing. 8) He responded that I still was meddling with his body without his permission so this is violence by my definition, otherwise I need to incorporate "harm" to my definition of "violence". And if I have no logically consistent and universal definition of violence, the NAP is nonconsistent as well... This is where I stumbled...

One statist disputing NAP with me and trying to show its logical inconsistency used an example the air we all breathe. I exhaled carbon dioxide, he said, and he was forced to inhale it. Doesn't it intervention into his body? If I followed NAP, why I would "touch" his lungs when I breathed with no his and the other people consent? Isn't it abuse of his lungs, his body?H If I followed NAP, I would have to stop breathing immediately! How could I counter this (and similar) arguments against universal application of NAP?