A British official asked Mahatma Gandhi whether he would use violence to stop a planned action that Gandhi opposed. Gandhi said he would not. The next day thousands of Gandhi's followers blockaded colonial HQ with a sit-in strike. The British official was furious. He called Gandhi ."You said you wouldn't use force to try and stop us! You lied!"
Gandhi said," I never promised I wouldn't use force. I said I wouldn't use
violence".I think this NAP or ZAP or CRAP concept is kinda wrongheaded for two main reasons:
1. It leaves the threshold for what is actionable "aggression" wide open. (Winking at your wife or girlfriend? Playing music too loud?) Where is the threshold? Who sets this threshold? Who will judge?
2. As much as I like LNS, I reject the idea that there exists (or should exist) an "official" canon of approved docturine people have to follow, regardless whoever its written by.
The arguments for NAPZAPCRAP are an Ad Populum fallacy. Which is as follows:
1. Most people approve of X , who advocates Y.
2. Therefore Y is true.
Where NAPZAPCRAP = Y and LNS = X
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the advocate of the claim, in this instance Smith.
So anyhoo I reserve the right to define aggression and how to respond to it for myself.
For an another take on NAPZAPCRAP by a prominent libertarian philosopher read this link:
NAP This!
