Thank you for reading and hopefully answering. :)

Proper nap will help the day better. Relax the body & mind. Its really make you active in your work.

A draft national constitution has been written. The intended name is the "Non-Aggression Party".

I need others to work with me to start and expand the political party.

The intent is for branches to be started in Australian states and territories, and get parliamentarians elected.

Full members and officers need to be on the Australian electoral roll.

Is there anyone here from Oz who is willing to be a sounding board for me while I draft a constitution for a new political party which espouses the non-aggression principle, including rejecting getting involved in current wars?

It will be called the "Non-Aggression Party".

Any tips or tricks?

About to take a nice long nap. Thinking of you subreddit! Wish me happy dreams along the way!

dont wanna nap with no 5 year olds smh

Hello, I'm madk3p and I'm sleepy. I'm running for a Governor seat in a political simulation on reddit (/r/ModelUSGov).

We are currently holding our elections and I am running as a candidate for the Slumber Party, a party dedicated to sleep and a Slumberist ideology. We're a satirical party, and we just want to sleep.

I am running in the Western State (composed of Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California) but you can register wherever you want! If your account is over 3 months old, please vote here and cast your ballot for the Slumber campaign!

Thanks and defend the NAP by napping!

If someone believes that harming another person is okay and intends to harm another person or group of people under some circumstance, is it okay to intercept that violence before it happens? Or must one wait for the first blow to retaliate with force?

For example, if a group of neo-nazi's are recruiting others and vying for a position of power with the full vocalized intent to harm or eradicate another group of people who are doing nothing wrong, is it okay to take them down through physical aggression before they find their way to that position of power which will allow them to achieve their goal, thus violating the NAP?

I'm sure much of this is opinion and up for debate, but is there any consensus on this matter?

Hello Nappers, My friend is working on a reference book about the Non-Aggression principle. It is a collection of questions and short essay answers on the NAP. The work is still in the making and needs some input (criticism or suggestions).

Please reply below if you are interested and I will send you a google drive link for (reading and commenting).

Thanks!

Our AutoMod script has been repaired and should no longer send you messages without probable cause. He has been reenabled.

If you have any problems with it just let me know.

Thank you!

EDIT: *Morale

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer. (Fredrick Bastiat.)

Sounds like today, no?

Lets consider the acceptance of the NAP a given for the purpose of this thread. Who does the NAP apply to? Where do we draw that boundary line?

If we draw the line at all humans, does that mean it would be morally acceptable to initiate force on a peaceful and intelligent alien, or a sophisticated AI? Where does abortion fit into all of this?

If we say that the NAP applies to those intelligent enough to be able to act morally, then how does that apply to babies and the mentally retarded? If young children have sufficient intelligence to be respected under the NAP, then by that logic we should apply the NAP to most animals as well.

If it's about sentience and ability to suffer, we must also apply the NAP to most animals.

Where do you draw the line and why?

For the record, I don't have a good answer to this question and that's the main reason I recently decided to go vegan. I also have mixed feelings on abortion. Yet at the same time, I don't condone the use of violence against farmers or abortion doctors.