анонимный вопрос

The principle of non-aggression is one of the criteria people use to make choices while living among others. However, its consistent application encounters the fact that different people in different situations have different criteria for what constitutes violence. A rock concert is far louder than a hammer drill behind a wall, but a person will readily go to a concert and tolerate the violence against their ears there, while they are far less willing to tolerate a hammer drill. Half a century ago, people were far more tolerant of engine exhaust or smoking indoors than they are today, but it is by no means certain that this trend will continue.

Since universal, objective, natural criteria for such things are absent, one must use various heuristics, such as, for example, the principle of estoppel, which states that someone who violates a certain norm is not entitled to demand punishment for others for violating that same norm. If you smoke indoors, you are not entitled to demand that others do not smoke. If you litter, you are not entitled to demand that others do not litter. Thus, places are formed where everyone more or less refrains from littering, and places where everyone doesn’t give a damn.

Indeed, strong intolerance toward emissions will manifest in some places; we can easily observe such territories called nature reserves or national parks. There, the owners maintain a very careful “non-aggression” on the territory and demand the same from others.

If there is anything constant in human society, it is diversity. No single principle will ever absolutely prevail over all. Not even the NAP. It is enough for you to implement it around yourself to a level that is convenient for both you and those around you.