Skip to main content



poking holes in the NAP?

On a discussion of pro-vaccine vs anti-vaccine, a commenter said, "hey, the NAP is whatever people want it to be. why can't i consider someone breathing in my direction to be an attempt to harm me? they could be sick. and if they're unvaccinated, they could be sick with a mutated strain of something, or some disease that was considered extinct. that's a legitimate and serious threat to my safety. may as well be waving a gun around".

Because I'm emotionally connected to the NAP, my instinct was to dismiss the claim as bullshit and move on. But that's not how you act of you're truly interested in uncovering truth. So, I considered it. Honestly.

1) the commenter (he) knows that people breathe. If he chooses to be around people, then he is consenting to being subjected to their breath. If he is around people involuntarily, then the NAP has been violated by whomever is forcing him to be around others, but not by the breathers, who couldn't avoid brea…

Latest Posts

philosophical rubber meets practical road

Do rights violators give up their rights?

Why term limits are a bad idea

There's no right to defend your property against threats

Ugh. Another post about "evil".

The Left ❤s racists and rapists

Psychology of authoritarianism

the descent into madness: an idea for libertarians

revealing universal, objective morality

thoughts on suicide