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 breathing even if they tried.
2) he is also breathing. Even he, the vaccinated guy, could very well carry a disease. There aren't vaccinations for all diseases, so he is guilty of carrying the risk that he claims others carry.
3) as has been shown on this blog, threats do not constitute a NAP violation, so the mere threat of contagion is not rightfully subject to defensive force.
End thought experiment.
P.S. As for the vaccine question, I'm neither for, nor against. I'm not a scientist, so I can't perform my own experiments or validate that experiments done by others are not biased. I certainly don't trust the government or their pharmaceutical companies. In theory, vaccines are great, but in the current reality, they're dangerous due to the lack of available concrete knowledge in a heavily politicized, agenda-driven environment. Also, the comment featured here includes a logical problem, where he argues that a mutated strain of a disease may threaten his health. That is the case regardless of whether or not anyone is vaccinated.
Comments
Now, you may say that I use the word "force" above, too loosely. I would counter, a right such as the right to life and liberty must entail the right to . . . unencumbered, the use of their time in the manner they choose, without interference.
If reason is a legitimate human trait that guides action, then it is REASONABLE to perceive that someone pointing a firearm at you IS a threat to your right to life and thus, represents a violation of the NAP as it forces one to DEFEND their right, rather than pursue their life unencumbered.
If you want to throw reason out of the equation, then I say that humans possess as many rights as any other living thing . . . with or without reasoning capacity - meaning zero rights.
As of yet I haven't found a way to determine what an objective definition of a threat is, and I suspect it's impossible to objectively define, though I'm interested in knowledgeable people's ideas.
1 - the pursuit of life is paramount - as the continuation of life continues the cognitive function. Without that, there is nothing. I suppose that this is predicated on the idea that life is valuable in and of itself because any cognition is better than no cognition.
2 - The individual, in continuing this cognition must sustain its life through whatever means possible but reason dictates that all other cognitive beings have the same pursuits so if one cognitive being infringes upon another cognitive being's pursuit of living, therein lies the oxymoronic nature of stealing as counter to cognitive living. therefore, this sustenance of life must be universal to cognitive beings.
3 - The corollary to all of this is that voluntary trade is the only ethical basis for sustenance of life. Beyond that, all choices are subjective, based upon a hierarchical value structure.
So, I'm not sure I can cap this discussion without your challenge to the axioms, the basis for philosophy that puts reason as the basis for human living.
Yeah . . . I get it; idiots can view threats as someone simply saying to him or her, "you're a piece of shit" and take that as a threat to their life and/or well being. Upon scrutiny . . . which humans ARE capable of doing, the language of "you're a piece of shit" has no fundamental characterization of someone threatening their health, life or well being. Its simply a statement of opinion. If language is to be understood, if the original statement of "you're a piece of shit" also includes "so I am going to kill you", then reason and general understanding of language dictates that in fact, a threat HAS been levied.
In short, subjectivism is a wonderful thing . . . but has only a limited application; it doesn't IMHO apply to fundamental rights and how they are infringed.