I think your thought parallels mine in this instance.

Is this somehow different from the Non-Aggression Principle? (I don't see that it is, but maybe you do.)

Naturally, being the trouble maker that I so proudly proclaim myself to be, I can see where there may very well be a difference of opinion regarding the specific definitions on the "property" part of "justly acquired property," but that doesn't conflict with your statement at all.

But I think we should include "universal love" in there somewhere... ;-)

I've been ranting and fuming and arm-twisting elsewhere about something but not here, I think, so let me bring it up. I've been looking into the concept of Somali Customary Law or Xeer, and, conceptually, it really looks good to me. What I like about it most is probably the idea that it looks through the other end of the glasses in that it only deals with conflicts, it does not deal with proscriptions. If there is no conflict then there is no law, there are no courts, there is nothing but people going about their business. When there is conflict, a voluntary court arises to deal with the issue, a decision is reached and then it is up to the parties to voluntarily abide by the decision. If they don't, then there is another conflict to be dealt with similarly, OR the offending party is simply ostracised and therefore is no longer in a position to do further damage to the community.

Everything is voluntary.

I point out that this is in theory. In reality they are (unlike myself!) imperfect and so engage in some horrific acts like clitorectomies and such. But the idea of ONLY getting involved when a conflict arises seems to me to be a core principle which most of the world has never even considered, and one which SHOULD be considered strongly.

- NonE