non-aggression principle

In Ancap Land
  • landlord: i own this miles-long forest on the other side of the country. if you traverse over it you are violating the non-aggression principle.
  • people who live near the forest and need to use it for resources: okay...do we have to voluntarily accept this scenario where you arbitrarily own this natural resource, or are you going to utilize a private dispute-settling service to have bounty hunters come and kick our asses if we don't move?
  • landlord: if you don't voluntarily accept my voluntary ownership over this swath of land i'm not using, then yes, i'm gonna call up my private defense force to aggressively remove you on account of your aggression. it's okay though because this defense force is not a coercive state and you can always go somewhere else.

A just law is one that criminalizes an action that would be just as bad if it were legal. Someone who doesn’t murder or rape only because it’s illegal is a dangerous person. They don’t actually care about the rights of other people at all. They’d gladly hurt other people with no remorse, as long as they don’t get punished for it. They’d most likely go out of their way to find legal ways to hurt people. 

So if you find yourself saying that the reason people shouldn’t do something is because it’s illegal, there’s a very good chance that it shouldn’t be illegal.

Some white person who probably identifies as a “pragmatist”: “You think your NAP can save you? Let’s see how good your NAP is when I round up a posse and hang you from a tree.”

Me, in ten times as many words: “Actually when somebody says they’ll hang me from a tree, I’ll just shoot them with a gun to enforce the NAP.”

Other white people, who probably deride liberals as “the real racists”: “Whoah mate you can’t do that, that’s a NAP violation. It’s just words, man, chill. I knew you niggers were violent.”

This is the first time I disagree with the ethical message of a Steven Universe episode. Homeworld was and is intent on violating Bismuth’s inalienable rights as a person, and she is entitled to whatever means of defense she sees fit to prevent that. Without any other context (Bismuth might have committed some other crimes that justified bubbling her, or maybe she made an agreement with Rose not to shatter gems on purpose) Rose bubbling Bismuth was definitely a mistake.

Shattering Gems is unnecessarily cruel when you have the option to disperse their forms and bubble them, but Rose bubbling Bismuth and then lying about what happened to her constitutes secret imprisonment without proper cause. :/

Steven bubbling Bismuth was totally justified though. She tried to kill him, even if it was a misunderstanding.

What exactly is the purpose of taking away voting rights from felons?

The only reason I can think of is that the government wants to be able to pass bad laws without anyone stopping them. The government declares a completely victimless action as a felony, then disproportionately targets oppressed demographics when enforcing the law. The people who have been arrested for that victimless action are the only ones who know firsthand how unjust the law is, and stopping felons from voting silences them so the unjust law has less opposition. 

Even if the crime actually has a victim, what’s wrong with allowing them to vote? Allowing murderers and rapists to vote will not cause murder and rape to become legal. Besides, for every violent criminal who can’t vote because of a felony conviction, there are dozens who can still vote because they haven’t been caught yet.