Those of you that follow me will know that I am an advocate for a long term goal of Anarchism (the classic "no rulers" version) and that I also am a Free Market advocate. This is also often called an Anarcho-Capitalist. For those that do not know me basically what this means is that I would like to see the future push towards the following, but I do not see it happening instantly. It is a distant goal.

• Non-Aggression Principle: Do not initiate aggression, but fully okay with self defense and defense of others nearby
• Voluntary Society - no one can force another to do something against their will as long as the actions of the person do not force/harm another, or their property
• Free Market. Voluntary trade driven by mutually agreed upon contracts and agreements between people.

[Source]

That is indeed very idealistic. I get that. You may look at that and say "That is unrealistic" and indeed if we were attempt to do it today with the behavior, education, and mentality of most of the population it would not work. It would end up as the hijacked modern use of the word anarchy which they have intentionally made synonymous with chaos.

This is why I consider it a long term goal. I've chosen to focus on critical thinking as one of the things I can help with. I try to make more people aware that education today does not teach critical thinking, thus it is on us to self educate on these tools. Critical thinking gives you tools that allow you to side step some common mental manipulations that are clearly used regularly upon the masses. It makes propaganda less effective. Yet, for any society to work people need to be able to think. They need to be willing to be themselves, and they need to learn to communicate and interact with people of differing ideas without condemning them based upon emotion, opinion, stereotypes/generalizations, and propaganda and instead use reason and critical thinking.

[Source]

That is my goal. It is a long term goal, I do not expect it to be close to being ready before I die. I simply work towards that.

Non-Aggression Principle: A personal crisis

I am a strong advocate of the Non-Aggression Principle. Yet, I have also been paying a lot of attention to events that are going on in the U.S. and even globally.

The NAP indicates I should not be initiating aggression, though self defense is acceptable.

Right now my mental crisis is arising as I watch events that seem to be almost like a large mass enveloping, preparing flanking maneuvers, and cutting off avenues of escape. I sit here in my righteous belief in the Non-Aggression Principle and I typically will not advocate aggression unless it is in my face as that typically is what we define as self defense.

What if there are proverbial cages, walls, and ever compacting political, and other events going on that are increasingly compressing towards me?

Do I initiate self defense when I see them at my door, or coming into my neighborhood?

Do I wait until the avenues through which I might act to stop it are closed?

My concept of NAP that I have been practicing is the NAP as applied to my ideal form of reality that I described earlier. The problem is we do not live in that reality.

There is the concept of hypocrisy. Speak about the NAP, but then advocate violent action today? I have not done that yet.

Yet, that is the crisis. I see things closing in. They have not quite reached my neighborhood, but I see the clear propaganda intentionally lying and manipulating a lot of people.

I see groups such as Antifa that actually do advocate violence to achieve their goal. At the moment the mainstream media is defending Antifa and even supporting their actions. This is a scary thing.

So do I sit still and wait until they come?

This is the NAP Crisis I am currently dealing with. I believe in the NAP, and if we were living in an environment where society was working along those ways then my approach might be realistic. Yet, is that an intelligent/wise stance to take while those that have no problem with violence and force grow, move, and destroy potential ideological allies?

[Source: Wikipedia]

I know there are a lot of people that believe in the NAP here on Steemit as I do. The question I've been pondering for a couple of days since I watched what happened in Charlottesville in unedited streams, and then I watched how things were spun for days after that is this... Should I be considering self defense as only acting when they are in my face and I can see them in my proximity? From a purely tactical, strategic mindset that is seeming like a very dumb thing to do.

If any of you play RTS games that is kind of like Porcupining without actually building up any defenses, and porcupining even though all the distant defense points are taken out one by one.

[Source]

I am starting to think we are actually in a moment where self defense is required, yet it is not against an in your face jerk. By the time they are in my face I suspect it will be too late. So, yes I support the NAP, but reality does not conform to my ideological desires.

This is much like my arguments against SAFE SPACES being where people are intentionally trying to make the world into a fantasy world and ignore reality. Well I believe we can be guilty of ignoring reality as well as we chant NAP this, NAP that.

Does any of this make sense? Any ideas? What do you think?