Our discussion in:
started to revolve around the issue of the NAP and so some of what I mention here will be related to earlier discussion in that thread (apologies for any confusion).
@Syrphant point 1:
Broccoli and weeds are not 'others'. The equating of human beings to the level of flora and fauna is something I have taken issue with environmentalists many times. Happy to discuss in an environmental thread.
"what you seem to be ignoring or avoiding is the relationship between the nap and the idea of a universal morality. saying anything is "inherently wrong" is essentially the definition of universal morality."
'Universal morality' is far less of a problem when it is detached from aggressive physical violence (apv) backing it up (which incidentally describes the State as it is currently perceived).
"if you are a believer in the nap, then it is part of your context. you are creating a false dichotomy"
@funky: If you don't believe in the NAP and it is not a part of your context then you take no issue with apv. All 'discussion', 'opinion', 'debate' etc. that follows isn't mere a discussion or debate it is a grab for power, backed up by violence (e.g. every election). How's that for a false dichotomy?
These were my last points in the money thread:
Which is a more authoritarian approach, context only, or application of the NAP?
I appreciate your rejection of "universal morality", which is why I have limited my perspective to the NAP only. The alternative, however, is to passively accept the armed monopoly of the State as characterized in the example above.
In short, I suggest it as an anti-authoritarian principle because it cannot be enforced through apv. I am suggesting the NAP becomes a part of everyone's context. Suggesting, there is no way for me, or anyone else, to enforce it. That is the key difference to the State. The State is not suggesting any principle. It backs up whatever 'moral' perspective it has manipulated into it's hands with apv.
"somebody beaten to death in front of me" already describes. Yes, I would say your reaction is predominantly negative and I see it as a 'good' thing if this is broadly understood to be 'wrong' and from there broadly understood that the State cannot function without apv.