Every time I think about NAP and argumentation ethics, I think about the the Impossibility of arguing for Initiatory Violence. Maybe that’s trivial but I have never read it in a clear and simple term. Maybe you finde the following valuable:
The Impossibility of Arguing for Initiatory Violence
To argue for something means to justify it as generally acceptable. This implies that I would have to accept it even if I myself were affected by it.
Initiatory violence, however, is by definition an action taken without or against the consent of the affected party. It excludes consent.
Anyone who claims to support initiatory violence would therefore have to accept being subjected to it themselves. Yet this is impossible:
Either the affected party consents, in which case it is not violence.
Or they do not consent, in which case, by definition, one cannot support it.
It follows that initiatory violence can be carried out, but it cannot be consistently endorsed or defended through argument. Any attempt to do so collapses conceptually.
Max (nprofile…u8g0) Isn’t this a descriptive, logical truth that nonetheless imposes normatively binding rules? Sometimes this thought feels important sometimes I think it’s trivial :D
SpontaneousOrder
npub1v0…y2cez
2026-01-13 16:23:02 UTC
in reply to naddr1qq…swjd
Author Public Key
npub1v0rgqy3hpucj7pml9waswzmmp94hu78ze4mjzxtfhhvkyq3f5zmsxy2cezPublished at
2026-01-13 16:23:02 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "a5eda462e69a61baeb489a616d0bdde33e75bf4e5785582581368723797cb01b",
"pubkey": "63c68012370f312f077f2bbb070b7b096b7e78e2cd77211969bdd9620229a0b7",
"created_at": 1768321382,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"a",
"30023:b7ed68b062de6b4a12e51fd5285c1e1e0ed0e5128cda93ab11b4150b55ed32fc:aaa336dc1b724da1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"b7ed68b062de6b4a12e51fd5285c1e1e0ed0e5128cda93ab11b4150b55ed32fc",
"wss://nos.lol/",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "Every time I think about NAP and argumentation ethics, I think about the the Impossibility of arguing for Initiatory Violence. Maybe that’s trivial but I have never read it in a clear and simple term. Maybe you finde the following valuable:\n\n\nThe Impossibility of Arguing for Initiatory Violence\n\nTo argue for something means to justify it as generally acceptable. This implies that I would have to accept it even if I myself were affected by it.\n\nInitiatory violence, however, is by definition an action taken without or against the consent of the affected party. It excludes consent.\n\nAnyone who claims to support initiatory violence would therefore have to accept being subjected to it themselves. Yet this is impossible:\n\nEither the affected party consents, in which case it is not violence.\nOr they do not consent, in which case, by definition, one cannot support it.\n\nIt follows that initiatory violence can be carried out, but it cannot be consistently endorsed or defended through argument. Any attempt to do so collapses conceptually.\n\nnostr:nprofile1qqst0mtgkp3du662ztj3l4fgts0purksu5fgek5n4vgmg9gt2hkn9lqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnp0faxzmt09ehx2ap08pu8g0 Isn’t this a descriptive, logical truth that nonetheless imposes normatively binding rules? Sometimes this thought feels important sometimes I think it’s trivial :D",
"sig": "9a35e21d3123f171c5853279beefedfd8da21094b07042ea0de71becf4e1d523ccc93fb0885694f24027db0c7f1cdd04cb919cf323966f64c403c3c2ad9373f0"
}