/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

I can understand the NAP as a convenient agreement but not as an eternally true objective moral principle because it is inconsistent and impossible to realize in real life. A factory owner in his own land is technically inferring on other people's property and health by polluting the atmosphere. Someone participating in the market is skewing the balance of supply and demand, which effectively leads to other people's material wealth decreasing (or increasing, but that does not matter here). If you say that these things do not count as aggression or as part of the NAP, it is completely fine, but you can't keep up the facade of it as an eternal moral truth if you just go arbitrarily crossing everything you don't like off the list of bad things and leaving others up.