The Aggression Principal (Patreon)

The Aggression Principal

Rough patron script: In libertarian and anarchy-capitalist societies, individuals are not governed by the mob rule of democracy or the fear of a tyrannical government, but by a guiding principal of non-aggression that all individuals in the community agree to. The non aggression principal or NAP is pretty simple: physical aggression is inherently wrong, and never to be resorted to. If everybody can just agree to not physically aggress upon one another or their property, then we can allow market forces and trade to guide how society functions instead. If and only if the NAP is broken by an aggressor, then one can use physical force back. In this way, the NAP is not wholly pacificistic, but strives towards pacifism as a rule. Now while to me the NAP seems like a great way of organizing society, some criticize it for being contradictory, and even anarcho-capitalists have varying ideas as to how the NAP applies to issues like abortion, intellectual property rights and nuclear arms proliferation. As an anarcho-totalitarain communo-capitalist with progressive fascist characteristics myself I cannot abide by contradictions. Can you imagine? A framework that contains contradictions? Impossible. The framework that you hold in your head right now? That one’s got not contrdadictions in it. Don’t even worry it about it buddy. I think our anarchy-capitalist friends are onto something that can be refined into something with no contradictions at all. I call it… the aggression pact. The thesis behind the aggression pact is pretty simple. We… we aggress. Put simply, everyone in my society would agree that if a fight wants to break out, it’s gonna break out. I view the Non-Aggression Pact as the equivalent of repressing your feelings. Sure, they might not be coming out now, but they definitely will come out one way or another later. It’s not healthy to pent aggression up. Basically in a world governed by the aggression pact everyone would just agree that a fight can break out at any time for any reason and that it’s entirely societally acceptable. See right now if I were to go up to someone on the street slap him across the face and challenge him to a duel, he could go and get the cops, who are by the way coercive tools of the state, and later sue me for assault, when in reality it would be a lot better if we fought each other, one of us gets our ass beat, and then we both move on with that need for violence sated in both of us. Look, I’ll just be the first to say it. Pacificsm? Overrated. Not what the world needs more of right now. Our culture puts criminally low value in the joy that can come when two people sort out a disagreement with force. All I’m saying is obesity probably wouldn’t be a problem in a world where we normalize respectable duels between individuals. While a non-aggression pact may very well lead to a harmonized community of non-violent individuals, what it doesn’t lead to is a world where I can beat a man within an inch of his life just because I had a bad day that day. I really think any form of the aggression pact is the way we should start moving our society in, because I have so many feelings inside of me that are screaming to be manifested, SCREAMING to be manifested, and right now my only outlet for them are these IMPOTENT VIDEOS! RARRRGH! *rip down greeenscreen* RAAAARGH! RAAARGH!