The situation of passing gas without explicit agreement with the owner of the property where it is done might seem like a regular problem of property and aggression punishment.The problem i have with this is that there exist negative consequences in the case of not commincing with that action, in addition to any likely technical issues in determining the objective proportional punishment methodology.
In essence it is a weird situation where there exists a clear aggressive observable action, but would-be aggressor itself would suffer similarly from any prevention of that activity. As such it must be concluded to be a paradox of action and a system of property attempting to solve use disputes.
Technically, sure, if the potential victim(s) choose to make an issue over it, then there was a violation of the NAP. However, what sort of effective damages are done by brief inhalation of a fart (likely: none, considering people inhale their own gas all the time), and what sort of compensation can you expect a PDA to award for this particular violation. The answer, of course, is that this is an absolutely trivial issue, and the minute (if any) compensation one would receive for a fart assault would not be worth the service fee to the PDA, or for that matter, the “victim’s” own time. If the victim wants to banish an individual from their property for this violation, well, that’s their priority, but that’s something that’s even possible under the present governmental systems. And frankly, I can’t remember the last time I was banned from someone’s premises for the expulsion of gas.
There’s no paradox here, simply a violation of no real consequence in terms of damage or potential compensation.
To further clarify, the main issue here (in my opinion) is that there’s a mistaken assumption of aggression. As I was discussing in another thread, technically, conditions have been met for a potential violation of the NAP. However, whether there has actually been an act of aggression or not can only be verified by the potential victim.
As an example, if I’m walking through a park, and I see a man slap a woman, I would be mistaken to assume that there has been a violation of the NAP. What I can see is that conditions have been met for a potential violation of the NAP. However, what I do not know is that these two individuals were practicing a move for a theatrical display. The woman is consenting and, if I were to ask, she would say she has not been aggressed against. So has there been a violation of the NAP? No, I can only say as an outside party that conditions were met.
So let’s say I pass gas near you, and it drifts downwind and assaults your nostrils. A potential aggression, and you confirm that you have been aggressed against. What now? What are you going to do about it? Is your agreement with your PDA contract-based? If so, is Fart Assault Protection even part of your contract? If so, what sort of compensation can you expect for the absence of damage done by said fart?
I think it’s a mistake to think that life in a NAP-guided society involves aversion to every possible violation of the NAP. What is important is that damages from violations are fairly compensated, and that protection from serious violations and damages are available if there is consumer demand for such a service (and if there’s not demand it stands to reason it’s not important).