Truce Theory and the NAP

All persons who adhere to the Mutually-Beneficial Truce of Property and Non-Violence (i.e. NAP") are presumed to be protected by the truces of property and non-violence. Persons who breach the truce, are treated similarly in return.

• Breach When a person steals, they are in breach-of-truce. As such, have demonstrated their unwillingness to participate in the truce of property. Further, they forfeit their protected status within the truce.

• Restitution A person who breaches the truce may attempt to restore the damage done by paying proportional restitution, and restore their status within the truce.

• Proportionality Maintaining the truce is desirable. If a person commits a minor violation (i.e. steals a candy bar) of the truce it would be unjust and problematic to commit a major violation in return (i.e. cutting off their arm).

• Defense Self=Defense, or Defense-of-others is justified, as the initiator (of theft, violence, etc) has already breached the truce. There is no hypocrisy in Person-A treating Person-B, the exact way Person-B treats Person-C/Person-A.

• Alternative? The alternative of non-defense would suggest: If person-A unjustly violates person-B, and person-B defends ("unjustly") against person-A, it would remain unjust for Person-A or any third party (i.e. Person-C) to violate person-B in response to their supposed-violation against Person-A. In short, it would be a worthless and meaningless truce.

Less ethics, and more practical…

• Arbitration Determining if, or how much, one is in breach of truce can be difficult due to a variety of circumstances. Further, forcefully responding to breaches can be highly destructive. "Binding Arbitration" is a practical and (generally) non-destructive alternative which allows two persons to resolve disputes without resorting to force. Arbitration is not "demanded" by the prior truce theory, but rather arbitration is a "good idea."