link to original reddit post by /u/AnCapGamer
Everyone is familiar with The Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you;" what I did not know until recently is that apparently there is also The Silver Rule: "Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you." This seems only reasonable, but it's relevant because it helps to clarify the intentions of The Golden Rule in a way that prevents a lot of bad-faith attacks.
In a similar vein, I would like to propose the following clarification to the Non-Aggression Principle, which I usually (when talking with friends and family) have termed "The Minimum Aggression Corollary" or "The Minimum Aggression Principle." My current formulation of it is something like this:
The Non-Aggression Principle:
"The initiation of force or coercion (including intimidation and fraud), is a universally unpreferable behavior, regardless of circumstances."
The Minimum Aggression Corollary:
"When it is necessary to use reactionary force or coercion as a defensive measure, it is universally preferable to utilize the minimum amount and intensity of force or coercion necessary to end the aggression."
This solves >90% of the theoretical arguments presented against the N.A.P. as a guiding principle of human behavior in practical affairs. Granted, as AnCaps, we already understand this as a moral stance, but it has always been implicit in our interactions, rather than explicit in our stated stances.
I propose the adoption of the corollary in answer to many of the theoretical situations presented during AnCap arguments (such as the infamous "Starving Thief" scenario).
Discuss.