Nerdism and Property

The Non-Aggression Principle is one of those codes of honor that gets carried out by the most naive of ideologues. The An-Caps, Voluntarists, Libertarians, and Anti-Statists are great examples. Now don't get me wrong these guys are perfect for identifying the reasonable corruption of various institutions, however the code of honor that they live by is remarkably unrealistic, and it's also remarkably irresponsible. An act of aggression for the greater good such as forcing someone into a straightjacket so they won't be able to shoot up heroine anymore would be principally immoral under these premises. This simplistic individualism they hold on to has been critiqued by various left-wing, liberal, progressive douchebags, but it has also been critiqued by those of the radical-right wing such as Bulbasaur. 

The thing with the NAP that shouldn't be neglected is that it's reliant on the Self-Ownership Principle. The idea that because individuals own themselves and act of aggression upon another individual is principally a crime. This is usually applied to protect the individual from the state, but can also be applied to various other institutions, collectives, or even other individuals. With that being said the NAP is pretty brilliant as an idea, as it can be applied to various subjects and issues, and still be a relevant principle. Those that support the NAP however, tend to be a little lazy on how they apply it. It's still a worthless principle.

With that being said The NAP reminds me of another principle that's held and discussed amongst a similarly nerdy group known as The Prime Directive. In the show Star Trek, the most important rule of Star Fleet is that one must never get involved in the affairs of other Alien races. It's a principle that has been copied from again and again. From my childhood perspective I can remember it being in Kingdom Hearts, which also involves space travel. With that being said it's no wonder that Libertarian conventions, and Star Trek conventions hold similar groups of people lost in a fantasy world, because one's a derivative of the other.

Getting into the meat of this subject. There's one manifesto that's a derivative of the Libertarian An-Fap manifesto (amongst many others). That my friends is Formalism, An ideology founded by internet personality Mencius Moldbug, an ideology that's "designed by geeks for other geeks".  Formalism holds on to the idea that ownership must be defined and supplied clearly in order to avoid the initiation of violence. Therefore the formalist manifesto is that of the corporation, yet it has also become that of the monarchy, and even monarchy-inverted (cis-democracy). Seeing that Mencius has already engaged in live presentations of his views to his fans it's becoming increasingly clear that Moldbug is setting the stage for the next nerd gathering.

The problem with setting a new principle for a better civilization is that you're starting from the bottom, which is a losing battle. While the luxuries of post mortum west will fade, our prime concern will be in whomever takes control of this civilization whether it be Islam, Latin America, or the East Asians. The external threats need to become a priority. Instead of forming principles on how to avoid invading other people's boundaries, we formulate a way of protecting our own. That doesn't take principles, that takes real responsibility.