NeoWayland's Lexicon
Politics • Sex • Magick • Economics • Philosophy • Science • Nekkid • Celebrations
version
A work in progress. Script links go to the timetable. Internal site links are underlined. Uppercase links go to specific entries.
A dashed border and red banner means I don't agree with the definition or that it is a dangerous idea.
Z
zeitgeist
❝the spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time.❞https://lexicon.neowayland.com/zz/#zeitgeist
Zero Aggression Principle
USUALLY Thou Shalt Not Initiate Force❝The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anti-coercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological ethical stance associated with the Anarcho-capitalist school of Libertarianism (consequentialist libertarians do not base their libertarianism on it). It is an axiom of some forms of anarchism, and also held by many political conservatives, traditionalists and natural law theory. The principle of non-aggression exists in various forms in the faith traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as Eastern philosophies such as Confucianism. It holds that "aggression", which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude defense. Libertarians typically believe that the non-aggression principle includes property as a part of the owner; to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. Thus, the principle leads to the rejection of theft, vandalism, murder and fraud. When applied to governments, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation, the military draft, and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, anarchists argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself and protecting individuals from aggression through voluntary payments rather than taxation.❞➢ Zero Aggression Principle: Wikis from the full wiki✧
❝The non‐aggression axiom is an ethical principle often appealed to as a basis for libertarian rights theory. The principle forbids “aggression,” which is understood to be any and all forcible interference with any individual’s person or property except in response to the initiation (including, for most proponents of the principle, the threatening of initiation) of similar forcible interference on the part of that individual. The axiom has various formulations, but two especially influential 20th‐century formulations are those of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, who appear to have originated the term. Ayn Rand maintained that “no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.… Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” This quote is similar to Murray Rothbard’s thesis that “no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.”❞➢ Non-Agression Principle from Libertarianism.org✧
❝Don't start nothing, won't BE nothing!❞— Agent Jay in Men In BlackWhile many consider the ZAP to be the defining characteristic of libertarianism, I can't find evidence that it was in wide use before the mid-20th Century. Yes it was mentioned, but always deriving from other principles. Considering some of the other things that were happening in American culture and in the liberty movement, it does make sense in context. If the ZAP wasn't THE defining trait of libertarians in the 1950s, or of (classical) liberals in the 1900s, then obviously the ZAP isn't as central to freedom and liberty as some libertarians say. There are exceptions to every rule. Exceptions that you can only invoke at your own peril and at the risk of undoing everything that you believe is right and just. There are times when playing by the rules just invites your own destruction. There are times when certain people game the system, just so no one can honorably oppose their moves. The Zero Aggression Principle only works as a guideline, not as an absolute. Depending on circumstances, I'm no longer willing to rule out initiating force. But I'm still smart enough to accept that initiating force could (and probably will) invite total catastrophe. With apologies to movie purists, “Be nice until it's time not to be nice.” Tit for tat. That's a choice that can only be made by an individual. That's a choice that will always have drastic consequences. Sometimes that's the choice that will support liberty and freedom. Ultimately, that's the goal, not non-aggression.See alsoarchate, Golden Rule, my TOTALLY secret agenda, “Never fight…”, non-aggression principle, non-aggression principle, Pagan•Vigil FAQ, Zero Agression Principle https://lexicon.neowayland.com/zz/#zero-aggression
ZFG zero fucks given
https://lexicon.neowayland.com/zz/#zfg
zodiac
❝The zodiac is an area of the sky that extends approximately 8° north or south (as measured in celestial latitude) of the ecliptic, the apparent path of the Sun across the celestial sphere over the course of the year. The paths of the Moon and visible planets are also within the belt of the zodiac. In Western astrology, and formerly astronomy, the zodiac is divided into twelve signs, each occupying 30° of celestial longitude and roughly corresponding to the constellations: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. These astrological signs form a celestial coordinate system, or even more specifically an ecliptic coordinate system, which takes the ecliptic as the origin of latitude and the Sun's position at vernal equinox as the origin of longitude.❞I've never found the zodiac useful for divination, prediction, or personality classification. It works great to help measure the solar year. As a metaphor, it's a set of symbols that can allow one to explore life and it's transitions. Just remember destiny is not carved in stone, choice can alter everything.https://lexicon.neowayland.com/zz/#zodiac
zombie ideas
❝Zombie ideas — a phrase I originally saw in the context of myths about Canadian health care — are policy ideas that keep being killed by evidence, but nonetheless shamble relentlessly forward, essentially because they suit a political agenda.❞https://lexicon.neowayland.com/zz/#zombie-ideas