The Intelligence Cycle

[MAM]

Que Rant

http://fas.org/irp/cia/product/facttell/intcycle.htm

I wrote an article some time ago: Basic Intelligence Gathering

Any successful defense is going to take part in the Intelligence Cycle.

The key to defending a society is knowing what threats are present and how to deal with them. It's about being proactive.

This is one reason I find the Immediate Threat NAP to be utterly ridiculous and inadequate to base a society off of .

One alternative is the Credible Threat NAP. Which IMO is superior. However I'm not convinced that the NAP shouldn't simply be abounded altogether.

The major difference between the NAP as Rothbard concieved it and mutualism is that the Rothbardian NAP essentially amounts to "do not question standard property norms"

Though something I find interesting is Socialist Voluntaryism. In general I think the word "voluntary" especially in this context is a useless word. "Voluntary" being completely dependent upon the individual using it notions' of what constitutes "good"/ "acceptable" behaviour.

In contrast the mutualist principle (as I use it anyway) requires the consent of every individual involved.

Essentially I think the immediate threat NAP is a bad idea and honestly is out right dangerous. If you wait for people to come at you, you're going to lose.

End Rant.

[Syock]

You are making several distinct issues in this post. 

So, you are suggesting what exactly in reference to the NAP?  If you want to behave like those you wish to remove yourself from, you accomplish nothing.  A death threat is a violation of the NAP, and wouldn't be against it to respond to the threat in some form.

The property concept that is suggested is quite different from the current norms.  In current norms, you don't actually own your property, or the rights to anything that is found on it unless specified otherwise. 

Voluntary is not a question of good or acceptable.  It is a question of consent. 

[macsnafu]

Okay, I don't know if you're coming back to check the forums, but I'll take a bite, anyway.

Perhaps you should be a little more explicit in your terms. What's a "threat"?  How do you distinguish between a credible threat and a non-credible threat. I'll assume I know what you mean by immediate threat, but I could be wrong even about that.

If someone says that they intend to kill me over the internet, like in this forum, or by email.  I'm not going to take it too seriously unless there are indications that they know who I really am and where I am located.

If someone I know and have met before calls me or sends a letter telling me he's going to kill me, I'll be more concerned, but in a bit of a quandary.  If I were to call the police, in today's society, they might investigate, but I doubt that they would arrest the person. If he subsequently killed me or attempted to kill me, then the police could use the threat as evidence against him on a murder or attempted murder charge. 

If I use your criteria, then after being threatened by him, I should go kill him first, before he tries to kill me.  But if I do that, am I not then guilty of murder?  Certainly, in today's society, I would be arrested and charged with murder, and although his threat against me might reduce my charge or my sentence, it would not be enough to clear me completely of a murder charge. 

In short, not only does your criteria fail the NAP, it fails current conventional legal rules.  Act upon your criteria, and you would soon be in jail or dead. On a larger scale, your criteria would involve wars, and either conquering or being conquered.  How can any of this be considered good for society?  It all sounds so much like a Conservative Republican warhawk.  Wouldn't you consider Putin's Russia a credible threat?  Or the radical Muslims?

[MAM]

"What's a "threat"?  How do you distinguish between a credible threat and a non-credible threat."

It's motive+capability so ISIS isn't a credible threat to the US because they lack the terror tradecraft skills to make an attack here feasible plus their resources are strained with their war effort. They have motive but lack capability and thus under my use of the "credible threat" NAP would not qualify as a threat.

Your "someone" may qualify with motive but similarly wouldn't meet the capability criteria or he might, it would be a personal judgement call.


" In current norms, you don't actually own your property, or the rights to anything that is found on it unless specified otherwise. "

I've come to the conclusion that you really don't own anything, unless you can defend it. Society presents the framework for ownership to occur.