#1 How does a person(and community) know if another person has been harmed and should be recompensed ?
#2 Who is to say what recompense is just(moral) if no one can know the extent of harm ?
RE: That's all subjective.
If there are no answers to these two questions, I won’t persist, but questions are not subjective. Some answers may be subjective, but these questions are not.
Community health requires, at least, a rule of law and fair and consistent way to implement the rule of law.
RE: Most people would probably agree with that but people will forever be debating what is fair and consistent.
Response: Yes, human history shows you to be correct, though some periods with good governance are much more conducive to elevating humanity.
RE: If you feel strongly enough about some rules and laws that you feel community health requires, I guess you can justify to yourself the use of violence to impose them on people who disagree with the particular details.
Response: It would be a community justifying a “rule of law” as needful for the health of the community, not a sole individual justifying, granting that the community is made up of individuals.
Did you agree there is something owed community ?
Certainly shedding unwanted growths, which usually spring up from what was a good beginning, could be effected through the act of the community – this is being accomplished today through non-compliance by many (and that is growing).
NAP being a good rule of law, a community still requires a fair and consistent way to implement it. For a tiny community perhaps a person’s word and personal retribution when one’s word is broken is sufficient, but the society of the continents, save one, are clearly not small enough for that to be a satisfactory implementation.
RE: Alright. You're stating your opinion. I can't really argue what your opinion is.
Response: Just asking . . . . Is it your opinion that a community does not require a fair and consistent way to implement NAP ?
CONCERNING YOUR WORDS:
“I don't guess most people will be ready to accept that truth until sometime after most people have let go of religion and finally see that states are an extension of that same mindset.”
What truth? Are you claiming “anarchy is the best form of governance ” as truth ?
RE: What did I say that sounded like that? I'm pretty sure I said anarchy was, by nature, a personal POV and had nothing to do with governance . . . I tend to see governance as a group of people . . .
Response: You used the words “that truth” and my questions were an attempt to determine what you meant by “that truth”.
As for governance, governance of a single person is still governance. I accept you may disagree with that. It is my understanding that anarchy rejects governance by groups and allow governance to be by each individual.
GovernMENT implying a group of people engaged in governance.
GovernANCE simply being an activity.
REGARDING: “What people call final arbiters in a minarchy are just people who have been assigned that role in some fashion with some degree of arbitrariness or another”
Agreed, but selecting oneself or selecting “nobody” is some degree or arbitrariness as well.
RE: It's not a selection. I will always be responsible for my decisions.
There a line that goes . . . If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can select anarchy by withdrawal from all forms of group governance.
You may not call that a selection, but I fail to see how it is not.
I believe that selecting one form of arbitrariness over another form of arbitrariness should be based on what better provides for the health of a community.
A rule of law with a restricting constitution by and for a society, among other things, can help alleviate some degree of arbitrariness in governance.
RE: Okay. So I suppose that would be the basis of your moral decisions rather than the NAP.
No. As long as the NAP is not violated, it is still the underlying basis.
Example: I don’t presuppose such a constitution to bring harm to people who do no harm to other people, though it would define what constitutes harm and that is an area which would need great scrutiny for any constitution.
CONCERNING: “The idea of the NAP is just that it seems like a good way to avoid violent conflict.”
Agreed, but how the NAP(form of governance) gets implemented can aid as well.
RE: I don't think you do agree, but you're welcome to a different opinion.
I don’t know how you arrive at that thinking when everything I say is in keeping with the NAP. I think you may be viewing Minarchism as necessarily violative of the NAP when it’s not.
RE: The NAP is a principle. That's what the P is. It's not a form of governance.
Response: Agreed. NAP is a philosophy as I stated earlier.
PHILOSOPHY, IDEA, PRINCIPLE, these are all terms to describe the same basic entity called NAP.
Anarchism and Minarchism are forms of governance which can implement NAP(PRINCIPLE/IDEA/PHILOSOPHY)
REGARDING: “If people cannot find a peaceful means of resolving their disputes, then violence seems inevitable.”
This seems like an argument for providing peaceful means, even if those peaceful means are encouraged by threat of violence in the face of “actual violence” that a person may contemplate engaging in.
RE: It's not. I suspect, based on your language, that we probably disagree on the extent to which power should be consolidated for this purpose.
Response: NAP allows for defensive force.
A threat of force(proactive defense) for someone who is contemplating aggression(offensive force) is wholly within the NonAggression Principle.
That said, a threat of force(proactive defense) for someone who is NOT contemplating aggression(offensive force) is NOT within the NonAggression Principle.
RE: I think there could be lots of arbitrators that compete
Response: I agree, but those arbitrators should all be subject to the “Rule of law” of the community.
Community Common Law courts used to do just this very thing.