It's not a nitpick. It's literally the definition of a positive vs negative right. The entirety of the difference between positive and negative rights is whether inaction or action is demanded.
It's not whether or not something is requested vs demanded, tbc. It's what is demanded/requested. If you ask/demand they leave you alone, it's a negative right. If you ask/demand they do an action, it's a positive right.
I increasingly don't see positive vs negative rights as a particularly useful distinction: the positive vs negative right issue is the sophistry and nitpick, though a slightly lighter term may be more correct: there may be a bit of a difference, but not as large as often assumed, and not as crucial to arguments.
And again, you show you don't know what you are talking about. All moral systems are built on at least one unproveable foundational argument (called an axiom), a thing that is just accepted as true that cannot be proven.
You need some fact that you just accept as true to start building the moral system upon. It could be something simple, like "Killing people is wrong". It could be more descriptive, like the NAP. Or you could go "The Christian god exists, and it is our duty to obey what he told us in the bible." Regardless, every moral system depends upon something unproveable.
I've told you my axiom. You apparently disagree with it. That's fine. Still, what are yours? Lay it out for me.
I argued above that its not even an Axiom. Especially as I have seen it used. An Axiom tells you something. Take the
Euclid Postulates:
- It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.
- It is possible to extend a line segment continuously in both directions.
- It is possible to describe a circle with any center and any radius.
NAP, especially with how broadly aggression seems to get defined, and the general softness of its use, its generally seems to devolve into a teleology as we mean linguistically where your just saying the same thing twice. "Wrong things are wrong". Bad=Bad might be a logically correct statement, but it doesn't advance anything either. And as a statement I'm not sure its even actually foundational enough to be an axiom.
You also argue against yourself for some reason. Here:
You say that the NAP proves little. But here:
You claim it does a lot. Make up your mind.
I say it doesn't actually prove much, since here I show things that obviously counteract it, or come to conclusions different than what Libertarians say are self evident from it.
Thus, my argument earlier that the NAP doesn't actually say much of substance. It might be useful, with tighter defined terms, as one axiom of several, or as a second level of arguments on actual axioms, but as it doesn't say much. Which I guess is a bit shown that you took my mocking of the NAP as arguments for it, bizarrely.
Libertarians however, claim it says quite a lot. Thus the use of the term "stealing bases", to mean "claiming something not actually earned" if your not familiar with the idiom. Libertarians claim the NAP proves a whole lot more than it actually does, by idea smuggling, or motte and baileying, depending on the precise argument being made.
Libertarian: "Assaulting people in the streets is wrong".
Other person: "Okay"
Libertarian: "Therefore your state conscripting you is slavery".
Other person: "Are those really the same thing?"
Libertarian: "Yeah, NAP".
So, the NAP itself doesn't actually say all that much, but Libertarians like to smuggle along a bunch of, often unstated, assumptions with it, to make it seem like it says a whole bunch more. Such as your idea that duties are not a thing. Or there are no other valid axioms. For example, take to axioms:
1) One has a duty to protect his people
2) Unjust Aggression is immoral
Once we allow two moral axioms, conscription is now not arguable against in a general sense. Any idea of duty as you suggest destroys doctrinaire libertarian ideology. But, most libertarians also recognize directly stating that instantly loses the argument, so generally find some way of arguing around it.
As to my axioms, I would say I'm probably a natural law person at this point, so the basic axioms have already been stated. To tighten up a bit more:
1) Morality exists. There are such thing as objective morals. A quick google search suggests this is generally referred to as
moral realism. Thus, I reject the general position of moral
anti-realism, specifically the stronger claims of
might makes right and
moral relativism, that there is nothing to morality besides the subjective desires, either of the powerful or particular groups.
Preferences of individuals, societies, and organizations exist, but a higher moral standard exists independent of the people and organizations which they can all be judged from independently.
(as an aside, this is one of the reasons I consider NAP not really axiomic in and of itself: it jumps the shark a bit by assuming moral realism. This is a common thing though in regular conversation, so not an immense hit against it per say.)
2) Morality is discoverable by man, and is primarily meaningful in respect to man. There are three broad categories of good proofs:
a) Reason (morality should be logical)
b) Moral sentiments (since morality is primarily a human concern, how humans feel about things matters)
c) Observations of the world. (a theory that fails in the world is not a real theory).
3) A proper morality consists of all three considerations
a) Duties: humanity is a social animal, and it is critical that he do his duties to see a healthy society and fulfillment of loyalty.
b) Virtues: the crafting of a good human.
c) Consequences: good intentions only go so far.
