http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/01/18/putting-the-nap-in-its-proper-context.aspxI contend that the non-aggression principle is not a contextless axoim and it requires a specific definition of the difference between genuine self-defense and the initiation of violence. There is a grave problem that thin libertarianism and plumb-lineenCommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/01/18/putting-the-nap-in-its-proper-context.aspx#83996Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:26:49 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:83996Baidle<p>I agree that instantly killing someone for stepping on your property seems disproportionate. &nbsp;However, you certainly have the right to order them to leave immediately, and if if they refuse, to forcefully remove them from your property. &nbsp;If they resist removal, you have the right to incapacitate them to facilitate their removal. &nbsp;</p> <p>If the method of incapacitation results in injury or death, they or their legal representative should bear the burden of proving that it was unnecessary or excessive. &nbsp;The burden of proof should be very high, considering that it was their initiation of force which led to the action in question.</p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=83996" width="1" height="1">http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/01/18/putting-the-nap-in-its-proper-context.aspx#80836Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:22:33 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:80836Brainpolice<p>A note of clarification: It seems that a lot of people aren&#39;t quite understanding the point. I am not denying the principle of self-defense, I&#39;m putting it in its proper context (I.E. in conditions of escalation and when there is a threat to life). I&#39;m not denying the enforcement of property rights, even partially through violence, if that violence is properly contextual. I&#39;m putting it in its proper context (I.E. in conditions of escalation or when there is a threat to life during the process of the crime and during the process of restitution). Violence is not normatively necessary or consistant as an absolute first option without regaurd for any context, or this view of property rights is actually justifying violations of the NAP by confusing arbitrary and unproportional violence with the proper defense of property rights.</p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=80836" width="1" height="1">