NAP Valid or Flawed.

[Exiled_LFOD]

I agree, it is less ethical in extreme circmstances. We won't even have to debate that at all, my friend. I just argue it's more practical, realistic, and less coercive where no non-coercive path exists. Like with starvation, and stealing food...the greater coercion is dying, clearly. So should you steal? Yes. You need to take the path of least coercion...and if a non-coercive path exists, then of course you would take that path, but since it doesn't, you must seek to reduce coercion ethically. Is this less ethical than not stealing, and just dying from hunger? Yes. But is it less coercive? Yes. I think the latter in extreme circumstances (where no non-coercive path exists) must be taken (and predictably will be taken by rational people - the grand majority of people).

The fact I admit it's an unethical act means it is also a crime. But is it the same as stealing for the fun of it? I argue the starvation is a mitigating and corroborating circumstance that calls for a lesser punishment than just stealing for fun. Although the unethical act is probably equal, the crime is not. For that reason, the thief who stole out of starvation will owe renumeration of possibly a lesser amount and no retributive penalties, whereas the thief who stole for fun will owe possibly a larger renumerative penalty and also possibly a retributive one (depending on if your legal theory includes retributive justice or not).

I would never suggest that acting unethically in order to limit coercion is not a crime and is not due to be set right once the extreme circumstance has passed and non-coercive paths become once again available.

A couple excerpts from my own unpublished works:

In the context of a beginning, is it reasonable to envision an original applied force originating at a point in space? Is it reasonable to envision the work of creation resulting from an applied force exceeding resistance in a multidimensional context?

Dimension is defined as the minimum number of coordinates to specify a point. A point has no minimum number of coordinates as a point can appear anywhere. A line is a one dimensional construct whereas it takes one coordinate to identify one point on a line. Surface is a two dimensional construct whereas it takes two coordinates to identify one point on a surface. Volume is a three dimensional construct whereas it takes three coordinates to identify a point withing volume. Time is a four dimensional construct whereas it takes four coordinates to identify mass in motion.

If an original applied force exceeded resistance resulting in work would not this work be observed in a reference to motion the same way we observe work resulting from a difference in voltage, temperature, pressure, etc.? Is it reasonable to believe man is capable of explaining any motion of work resulting form an original applied force exceeding resistance? Is it reasonable to believe man is incapable of explaining an original applied force utilizing senses than can only appear to perceive in reference to motion?

I define nature as a system of work resulting from the imbalance of an original applied force exceeding resistance. I consider observations the
universe is mostly comprised of matter sensible, pun intended.

Libertarians may have a positive, negative, or zero charge, and are highly reactive radicals running free in the body of society causing degeneration in the belief of State.

States are just as unnatural as the universe since both are widely believed to be based on a concept of an original applied force exceeding resistance. In the fairytale titled “Kingdom of State”, force is allegedly applied to protect the flock of good. The State is truly man's invention of Heaven on Earth.

The opposite of force is resistance. The concept of least resistance can be restated as cooperation. Cooperation leads to equilibrium whereas the fruit of coercion is disequilibrium. Difference in voltage results in electrical current. Difference in pressure results in flowing water. It is imbalance that results in work performed in nature.

I consider what you describe as a least path of coercion to be natural observable action similar to the concept of electricity following the least path of resistance. At face value I personally consider path of least coercion to be less ethical however I am not prepared to argue it. I will reflect on it. Like Jeff responded recently I do believe subsequent generations can conceive even better ideas than their predecessors. That is how civilization and technology have evolved.

[ProIndividual]

A couple excerpts from my own unpublished works:





I consider what you describe as a least path of coercion to be natural observable action similar to the concept of electricity following the least path of resistance. At face value I personally consider path of least coercion to be less ethical however I am not prepared to argue it. I will reflect on it. Like Jeff responded recently I do believe subsequent generations can conceive even better ideas than their predecessors. That is how civilization and technology have evolved.

That's extremely interesting and I think it has validity...I never thought of it this way. And again, you don't have to argue that it's less ethical...it is admittedly less ethical, but only in extreme circumstances. In moderate circumstances (which I define as circumstances where paths of non-coercion exist - the vast majority of circumstances day to day for humanity) my theory is identical to the NAP. Where it differs is only in extreme circumstances (where no non-coercive path exists, and only paths of coercion are present, some more coercive than others, or possibly even several equally coercive paths). These extreme circumstances then abandon rule based ethics (deontological or rule utilitarianist consequentialism) and operate strictly on consequentialist Utilitarianism (what lessens human pain and increases human happiness/pleasure overall). This is now, in the extreme circumstances only, less ethical. But I argue in extreme circumstances (as I have defined them) the goal should not be non-coercion or non-initiation of force, but instead causing the least coercion possible via initiated agression. Why? Because like in the starvation example, the NAP would coerce you more (by making you starve to death) than stealing food from your victim would coerce the victim of theft. Even if the entire world is starving to death, since the coercion is equal for all parties, you would be in a neutral coercion impasse, where stealing the food is equal to not stealing it, as it will kill someone...so you'll have nothing keeping you from self preservation and the theft (assuming you're rational and not suicidal).

This doesn't make the acts in extreme circumstances ethical...it actually means they're unethical and criminal. But they are criminal with mitigating and corroborating circumstances that make their penalties via law much less severe than if these crimes were commited in moderate (as I have defined them) circumstances. I think of this a bit like Civil Disobedience to the NAP. I personally believe the deontological/consequentialist paradigm is too simplified for real world ethics given some circumstances are extreme, and others are moderate.

I'm intrigued by your comparison to electrical current choosing the path of least resistance...and I think might be a perfect metaphor actually.

[Occam's Banana]

My question is not really "Why is aggression bad". It’s more in the line of how can NAP be considered a valid philosophy when we know that justification for different degrees of aggression are subjective.

The values placed on goods & services by buyers & sellers in free exchange are entirely subjective.

But the fact that value is not objective does not mean that FME (free-market economics) is invalid.

Likewise, the fact that the assessment of "degrees of aggression" is not objective does not mean that NAP is invalid.

On the level of abstract principle, FME is just the application of NAP to economics (or, conversely, NAP is just the application of FME to justice).

To dismiss NAP becuase evaluations of "degrees of aggression" are subjective makes no more sense than to reject FME becasue evaluations of goods & services are subjective.

[Exiled_LFOD]

That's extremely interesting and I think it has validity...I never thought of it this way. And again, you don't have to argue that it's less ethical...it is admittedly less ethical, but only in extreme circumstances. In moderate circumstances (which I define as circumstances where paths of non-coercion exist - the vast majority of circumstances day to day for humanity) my theory is identical to the NAP. Where it differs is only in extreme circumstances (where no non-coercive path exists, and only paths of coercion are present, some more coercive than others, or possibly even several equally coercive paths). These extreme circumstances then abandon rule based ethics (deontological or rule utilitarianist consequentialism) and operate strictly on consequentialist Utilitarianism (what lessens human pain and increases human happiness/pleasure overall). This is now, in the extreme circumstances only, less ethical. But I argue in extreme circumstances (as I have defined them) the goal should not be non-coercion or non-initiation of force, but instead causing the least coercion possible via initiated agression. Why? Because like in the starvation example, the NAP would coerce you more (by making you starve to death) than stealing food from your victim would coerce the victim of theft. Even if the entire world is starving to death, since the coercion is equal for all parties, you would be in a neutral coercion impasse, where stealing the food is equal to not stealing it, as it will kill someone...so you'll have nothing keeping you from self preservation and the theft (assuming you're rational and not suicidal).

This doesn't make the acts in extreme circumstances ethical...it actually means they're unethical and criminal. But they are criminal with mitigating and corroborating circumstances that make their penalties via law much less severe than if these crimes were commited in moderate (as I have defined them) circumstances. I think of this a bit like Civil Disobedience to the NAP. I personally believe the deontological/consequentialist paradigm is too simplified for real world ethics given some circumstances are extreme, and others are moderate.

I'm intrigued by your comparison to electrical current choosing the path of least resistance...and I think might be a perfect metaphor actually.

Specifically what would be the ethical arguments of:

The concept of least resistance can be restated as cooperation.

This is a silly pulling something out of thin air and an observation in which I am not going to attempt to argue but...

There are distinctions between a property owner who 1) who erects a fence, or 2) posts a no trespassing sign, or 3) does nothing for the purposes of resisting trespassing but there is no distinction with regards to whether or not one is the owner of property or whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner.

[ProIndividual]

Specifically what would be the ethical arguments of:

"The concept of least resistance can be restated as cooperation. "

This is a silly pulling something out of thin air and an observation in which I am not going to attempt to argue but...

There are distinctions between a property owner who 1) who erects a fence, or 2) posts a no trespassing sign, or 3) does nothing for the purposes of resisting trespassing but there is no distinction with regards to whether or not one is the owner of property or whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner.

I might misunderstand your questions...but I'll give it a shot.

I would say cooperation is voluntary, thereby ethical. The concept of least resistance being copperation makes sense, as the "path of least coercion" in this case would be a non-coercive path here. To cooperate is voluntary, thereby non-coervice, and therefore a path of lesser coercion than a coercive path, logically. Anytime you have a non-coercive path, it is a least coercive path and fits my theory in terms of what I defined as "moderate circumstances". However, if cooperation is not available as a choice, or ends up coercing you more than acting with aggression, then a coercive (but as least coercive as available) path would be chosen instead. This latter case I defined as "extreme circumstance", and is not ethical, albeit preferable. It is criminal, but less punishment would be perscribed under law due to the mitigating and corroborating circumstances in the "extreme circumstance" you faced.

I hope that answered your question.

In your latter hypotheticals, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get across. I may be reading it wrong, or missed something obvious. I'd ask you to help me out. What I'm seeing is 3 property owners, one with a fence, one with just a sign, and one with neither. There is no distinction as to who owns the property in the last case. The part I'm confused about (I think) is the "there is no distinction with regards to...whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner".

I mean, altering their property would violate the NAP in moderate circumstances, but in extreme circumstances might be a path of least coercion. For example, someone is freezing to death in the winter and needs a tree from one of these properties to burn for warmth. It's freeze to death, or steal firewood. The path of least coercion, albeit ciminal and unethical, is to steal the wood. This will need to be renumerated by law after the extreme circumstance has passed. This would likely be renumeration including the value of the wood plus some extra in money, wood, trade, or labor in order to compensate the property owner (who is a victim of theft) for his losses in time, wood, and effort to get renumeration. How the property was protected would largely not matter at all. The fence, sign, or neither is simply a preference of the owner that has no bearing on the crime itself...otherwise we're blaming the victim to some regard (like saying a girl in a short skirt deserved rape more than one in long pants).

If I didn't get that right, help me out, and I'll be happy to re-apply the theory for you

[Exiled_LFOD]

I might misunderstand your questions...but I'll give it a shot.

I would say cooperation is voluntary, thereby ethical. The concept of least resistance being copperation makes sense, as the "path of least coercion" in this case would be a non-coercive path here. To cooperate is voluntary, thereby non-coervice, and therefore a path of lesser coercion than a coercive path, logically. Anytime you have a non-coercive path, it is a least coercive path and fits my theory in terms of what I defined as "moderate circumstances". However, if cooperation is not available as a choice, or ends up coercing you more than acting with aggression, then a coercive (but as least coercive as available) path would be chosen instead. This latter case I defined as "extreme circumstance", and is not ethical, albeit preferable. It is criminal, but less punishment would be perscribed under law due to the mitigating and corroborating circumstances in the "extreme circumstance" you faced.

I hope that answered your question.

In your latter hypotheticals, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get across. I may be reading it wrong, or missed something obvious. I'd ask you to help me out. What I'm seeing is 3 property owners, one with a fence, one with just a sign, and one with neither. There is no distinction as to who owns the property in the last case. The part I'm confused about (I think) is the "there is no distinction with regards to...whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner".

I mean, altering their property would violate the NAP in moderate circumstances, but in extreme circumstances might be a path of least coercion. For example, someone is freezing to death in the winter and needs a tree from one of these properties to burn for warmth. It's freeze to death, or steal firewood. The path of least coercion, albeit ciminal and unethical, is to steal the wood. This will need to be renumerated by law after the extreme circumstance has passed. This would likely be renumeration including the value of the wood plus some extra in money, wood, trade, or labor in order to compensate the property owner (who is a victim of theft) for his losses in time, wood, and effort to get renumeration. How the property was protected would largely not matter at all. The fence, sign, or neither is simply a preference of the owner that has no bearing on the crime itself...otherwise we're blaming the victim to some regard (like saying a girl in a short skirt deserved rape more than one in long pants).

If I didn't get that right, help me out, and I'll be happy to re-apply the theory for you

As I said I am not prepared to argue anything just throwing out unqualified thoughts.. To throw out a hypothetical or two off the top of my head.

Surely nude sun bathers do not deserve a trespass even if there is no sign or fence?

Dumpster diving?

I would also suggest you throw up a thread over at Mises and see what kind of responses you get.

[ProIndividual]

As I said I am not prepared to argue anything just throwing out unqualified thoughts.. To throw out a hypothetical or two off the top of my head.

Surely nude sun bathers do not deserve a trespass even if there is no sign or fence?

Dumpster diving?

I would also suggest you throw up a thread over at Mises and see what kind of responses you get.

I'd say the alienable right to property (transferable, therefore alienable) would get overruled by the inalienable right to movement (if I can speak in terms of rights for ease of conversation, although if forced I can speak in terms of utility I suppose). That's not to say nude sunbathers can just trespass whenever...but as you asserted, when there is no sign or fence (or to a lesser degree, even when there is) the land owner must assume accidental trespass. The assumption is made of good intent until otherwise shown. If the sign and fence were there (more the sign, less the fence), you should still assume confusion or medical problem clouding rational movement. So, yes, in the example of nude sunbathers trespassing out of confusion, the land owner should be left w/o renumerative or retribtuve legal recourse due to the elevated confusion possible because there is no sign, or fence for that matter.

But are the sunbathers hot women? He may then be smart to keep the sign and fence away, and invite such confusion (lol).

Dumpster diving is another story. If we're in today's world, I'd say there is no crime there as long as you aren't leaving trash outside the dumpster before leaving. But in a world I imagine possible, people could sell their trash to trash men who recycle it for profit. If that were possible, then you'd remain owner of that property, not relegating it to simple refuse. If that were the case, it'd be low level theft.

Maybe I will throw up a thread at Mises, see what happens. Thanks for the suggestion. You can also repost (obviously)

One thing I'd mention: I'm only considering moderate circumstances above. In extreme circumstances the rules change a bit. For example, if you're land was posted or not, and was in between a bleeding sunbather and a hospital in an emeergency (shark attack perhaps), they would find the path of least coercion to be trepassing briefly. This would still be a crime, but with no damage done I'm not sure the renumeration would exist, and if it did, it might be insubstantial (an apology, or a quarter or something). In the case of dumpster diving, if hunger were an issue then again the path of least coercion would come into play, and again it would be unethical and a crime, but nonetheless the correct path. Again, after the extreme circumstance had passed, the dumpster diver would need to renumerate the victim of theft (in my hypothetical world where trash were property and not simply refuse).

Thanks for your interest, BTW.

[Conza88]

Recently, I had a discussion with Rothbardian Girl about Non Aggressive Principle. She brought up some good points in defense of the idea and that got me thinking about the core base of this principle. What is the core justification of this idea?

Self-ownership and original appropriation (homesteading)... necessarily leads to the NAP.

Case closed. Let me know if you want more.

[Conza88]

I concur.

Are we not actively opposing a corrupt state?

Isn't that a form of aggression?

aggression: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.

I'd like to see the ideas of liberty, prosperity, and peace dominate.

A non-violent principle is probably a better way to frame what many of us practice.

No... ALL aggression is wrong (it is defined as the initiation)... not all COERCION however is wrong.

Coercion” is annoying, but coercion is neutral
Posted by Stephan Kinsella on July 6, 2006 02:43 PM

"I must confess that one of my nits is the use by libertarians of the word “coercion” to mean “aggression.” I suspect this is a habit inherited from Ayn Rand’s repeated misuse of the term. Let’s get it straight: we libertarians oppose aggression, i.e. the so-called “initiation of force”, not force itself. To coerce is just to use force to make someone do something, to compel them. Coercion is just a type of use of force. Libertarianism is no more against coercion or force than it is against guns, which may be used for good, or evil."

[Conza88]

Really, the level of ridiculousness in some people with this subject is off the charts.

Time to learn about / move onto argumentation ethics / a priori of argumentation and communication I think...

[Sentient Void]

I feel the NAP is sorely misunderstood - by both ancaps and collectivists alike.

I am a firm advocate of the NAP (in regards to person and private property) in a justice system being 'built' around it - or stated differently, that the best justice system will probably be built around the NAP, and that a society that follows the NAP absolutely consistently will be the most 'just' as well as the most prosperous.

That being said, some ancaps, libertarians, et al say that the NAP is *never* to be violated, no matter what... I disagree with this.

Example...

If my brother or sister or child or parent or close friend or even perhaps a complete stranger was dying in front of me, at 3:00 AM in front of a closed pharmacy and was in *dire* need of a certain type of medicine very soon - I would not hesitate to break into the pharmacy to steal the medicine (and/or requisite first aid kit) in order to save his life.

This would certainly be a clear violation of the NAP.

But to me, I don't see how this makes me any less deontologically libertarian, or ancap, or whatever.

I don't find my stance on the NAP inconsistent with libertarianism at all. The NAP still holds, as long as restitution/retribution is doled out. I personally would willingly give myself over to the victim (the pharmacy) and ask for judgement to be made and accept those consequences. But it comes down to how responsibility must be taken for the person's actions in breaking into and stealing the medicine/first aid. Whether willing or unwilling, it's about responsibility for one's actions, and justice via application of retribution/restitution according to proportionality appropriate to the violation of the NAP.

At that point one must weigh the just consequences of the theft with my value of the person that 'needs' to be saved. Is it worth it for me? In the vast majority of cases, I would say it would be worth it and I would engage int he theft and welcome the consequences. If I did not welcome the consequences, it would still be unjust for me to get away with it.

At the same time, the victim of the theft (pharmacy) has the right to 'up to' the value of the property in restitution, perhaps more depending on who you talk to (Block nods) - which means they also have the right to not pursue the restitution - which may even be good PR and attract more profit because of public response...

[Occam's Banana]

[lots of good sense snipped for space]

I agree completely. In place of your pharmacy example, I've always used this scenario: imagine you're lost & freezing in a blizzard and you stumble across a cabin (or some other kind of shelter). The owner, who is present, is an elderly person who is unduly afraid of you & refuses to assist. What do you do? Do you say, "Oh, well! The NAP forbids me to forcibly tresspass, so I'll just wander off & die" ... ?

NAP is an a posteriori (or "post-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (previously committed) action is a suitable candidate for jurisprudential consideration.

NAP is NOT an a priori (or "pre-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (as yet uncommitted) action must *never* be committed. (Though it can often serve as a general guide or rule-of-thumb in this regard - especially under mundane circumstances or in situations that are not "edge cases.")

Also important to remember is the fact that NAP doesn't tell us anything about *what* we ought (or ought not) to do in response to NAP violations. Other valid principles of justice (such as that of restitution) are required for that purpose.

[Voluntary Man]

follow your principles. take action. face the consequences.

sometimes you have to strike first, if you want to survive. however, by doing so you take responsibility as the aggressor. you run the risk that what you may be able to justify to yourself, you may not be able to justify to others.

your actions may only delay what they were intended to prevent.

in the end, we're all worm food, anyway. so, live by your principles and take your chances.

[Voluntary Man]

I've always used this scenario: imagine you're lost & freezing in a blizzard and you stumble across a cabin (or some other kind of shelter). The owner, who is present, is an elderly person who is unduly afraid of you & refuses to assist. What do you do? Do you say, "Oh, well! The NAP forbids me to forcibly tresspass, so I'll just wander off & die" ... ?

I'm wondering how your story ends. in my version, trespasser is shot by frightened, elderly property owner. how does your version end?

[ProIndividual]

"I must confess that one of my nits is the use by libertarians of the word “coercion” to mean “aggression.” I suspect this is a habit inherited from Ayn Rand’s repeated misuse of the term. Let’s get it straight: we libertarians oppose aggression, i.e. the so-called “initiation of force”, not force itself. To coerce is just to use force to make someone do something, to compel them. Coercion is just a type of use of force. Libertarianism is no more against coercion or force than it is against guns, which may be used for good, or evil."

I disagree with this quote. I am against coercion more than initiation of aggression...and I'm nowhere near an Objectivist.

How can I say this?

Because initiation of aggression is coercion when used against someone who has not yet, by their own actions, compromised their individual sovereignty. To open yourself to justifiable coercion you must first ALWAYS have shown by prior actions you are unable, whether mentally or physically, as an adult, to govern yourself. If you do not show this (by initiating unwarranted aggression via this criteria), then you cannot be justly coerced.

It is precisely coercion anarchists seek to stop. It is a non-coercive world that anarchy seeks to create (insofar as it is possible). It is justifiable to initiate aggression at times (when one has already compromised their individual sovereignty through aggressive action) and coerce at times (when their is no non-coercive choice; precisely in extreme circumstances where the NAP is itself coercive). Non-aggression can also lead to coercion. Anarchism is a philosophy about non-coercion (where possible), not necessarily non-aggression all the time, universally. It's so confusing because one often mirrors the other.

This is why I suggest replacing the NAP with the "path of least coercion". In what I have previously defined as "moderate circumstances", the NAP is fine, and my theory mirrors it. However, in what I have previously defined as "extreme circumstances" (example: starvation; shall you steal or die by upholding the NAP), the NAP is itself a coercion. In such cases you should choose the "path of least coercion" (death is more coercive than theft, even though dying is devoid of initiated aggression). In other words, the "path of least coercion" is more consistent and coherent, as it adapts to all circumstances, whereas the NAP cannot. In "moderate circumstances" my theory still sides with the NAP, because logically when their is a non-coercive path, the "path of least coercion" is the NAP (or it's Utilitarian, consequentialist equivalent).

Essentially we cross over and obliterate the deonotological/consequentialist paradigm by using my theory. In moderate circumstances we can view this as deontological (rule based, if you will), or consequentialist (as the best consequences come from the least coercion occuring). In extreme circumstances it is also both deonotological and consequentialist. You might say in the moderate it's more deontological, and in extreme more consequentialist...but regardless, it isn't either 100%. That paradigm no more fits real life than "right" and "left" do.

If you follow the path of least coercion you will be following the NAP until an extreme siutation occurs. At that time your initiated aggression will NOT be ethical just because it's the path of least coercion. It therefore is criminal, as pointed out above (according to the NAP). HOWEVER, when developing law one must always take each case individually, and I believe the NAP makes no distinction between theft for enjoyment and theft for necessity to limit coercion. It is by looking at the path of least coercion that we can see which of the motives is deserving of more punishment (if any - as rightly pointed out above). It makes it clear that stealing food or medicine for necessity is a lesser crime even though just as unethical under the NAP, thereby perscribing lesser renumerative and retributive (if any - depending on your theory of law) penalties than to theft for enjoyment (wanton criminality).

I think since we allow law to emerge via our ethical theory it's important that we use an ethical theory that is consistent...and that requires knowing how to handle situations that will force us to do unethical things to limit coercion (the real enemy is coercion, not aggression).

Where initiating aggression increases coercion, we shall not aggress. Where initiating aggression decreases (or does not increase) coercion, we shall aggress. We shall always choose the path of least coercion.

Initiated aggression is universally unethical and criminal. All initated aggressions are equally unethical. All initiated aggressions are not equally criminal.

When choosing initiations of aggression that are the least coercive possible, we have commited the lesser crime. When choosing initiations of aggression that are not the least coercive possible, we have commited the greater crime.

With these italicized statements in mind, I think "the path of least coercion" is a better theory for determining ethics, prefered actions, law, and penalties for criminality than the NAP. It's just more consistent in my mind, and able to answer tough hypotheticals that many NAP adherents struggle with in terms of consistent answers (example: I've heard NAP proponents say it's the preferable course of action - not to be cofused with the ethical one - to steal to stop starvation when no alternatives exist, however, some of these same folks will suggest stealing from another starving person who will also die is not preferable, which I find decidedly inconsistent - because stealing does not increase coercion and there is no non-coercive path).

As always, I'm open to debate or criticism

[Occam's Banana]

I'm wondering how your story ends. in my version, trespasser is shot by frightened, elderly property owner. how does your version end?

My version doesn't have an ending ... it's a cliffhanger!

Seriously, though, I leave the story unfinished in order to suggest numerous possible outcomes. There's the "I'll go way and die" outcome, or the "I kill the resident to save myself" outcome, or the "I tresspass by sneaking into the barn" outcome, or... (and so forth).

The point is that, for one reason or another, *none* of the possible outcomes (given the situation) are entirely satisfactory. This indicates that the NAP, as critically important as it is, is not the "end-all-be-all" that many make it out to be. This isn't due to any flaw or inadequacy in the NAP - it's due to attempts to force the NAP to give us neat, tidy answers where no such answers are possible (under *any* principle of justice).