Challenging the NAP

[Cork]

If you want to be opposed to nukes, good for you. But wouldn’t a voluntary solution, rather than a might makes right solution, be more: moral, legal, and practical? Plus, wouldn’t you lose a might makes right contest against a possessor of nuclear weapons?

Politely ask a maniac to stop making nukes, and if he continues, not to use them? Maybe if I say pretty please? Somehow I doubt that’s going to be very effective.

Why a law against nukes must lead to an invasion or apolcalyptic battle is beyond me. But you’re right: the possessor of nukes would certainly win if one were to break out. Or maybe this is one of those peaceful nuke-lovers?

I cede that grabbing the rifle is an illegal act, morality exists beyond legality.

I agree! It is problematic to place the NAP as the end-all of morality. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. I don’t disagree that it should be illegal to take the rifle.

[Bostwick]

@Cork

Why a law against nukes must lead to an invasion or apolcalyptic battle is beyond me.

Because thats what the law is.

If its illegal to do something that means that perps can be subject to violence. If you don’t plan on invading anyone, whats the point in making it illegal? I mean invasion of private property, not discussing states in particular.

You say that asking won’t work(asking is not the only voluntary means, by the way) but then imply that conflict won’t result?

You seem to have built a scenario where violence will be used to prevent the creation of nukes, but how is that relevant? We already have nukes today. It seems volunteerism is the only option available to rid the world of nukes, and if its capable of doing that, why would it not also be capable of keeping them gone?

[Cork]

Yes, I will happily advocate the “invasion” of his property to get whatever nuke-project he’s working on before he finishes making or using it.

You say that asking won’t work(asking is not the only voluntary means, by the way) but then imply that conflict won’t result?

Arrest the moron when he’s at a bar or something, then take his stuff later. What do I care? Obviously they would look for some way to do it without conflict, though if you think a maniac building nukes isn’t already planning a conflict, you’re delusional.

We already have nukes today.

Yes, and there’s nothing to be afraid of, is there?

At least governments usually keep nukes to deter others from attacking. I can’t imagine a private individual building a nuke for anything else but using it.

[Jon_Irenicus]

You’re missing the point: if one believes in a pure NAP then even the most microscopic level of pollution is aggression and ripe for prosecution. Whether people decide to seek restitution is irrelevant.

No, you’re missing the point and erecting a strawman in the process. If the NAP were really “challenged”, then rights violations would not be punishable. But they are. And it’s up to the alleged victim to see that they are. If they don’t want to, there is no problem. So this is no challenge for the NAP.

If someone stabs me in the arm and I choose to ignore it, that doesn’t answer the question of whether it would be a rights-violation had I not chosen to ignore it.

You retain the right to punish them. If you don’t, that’s your choice.

You’re still not getting it: we aren’t discussing whether a person will seek restitution, but whether it’s even possible for a society to exist without aggression. For instance, can a ‘victim’ seek restitution if I breathe? CO2 is a pollutant, as Friedman points out, so breathing could be called aggression.

Nah, I am “getting” it. The non-aggression principle is a moral one concerning the permissibility of force. It does not preclude its existence. If people agree to put up with some force on both ends (e.g. pollution generated by using cars), that is their choice and it is consistent with the NAP - to say the NAP is challenged you have to say not only that they are subjected to force but also that they cannot choose to punish it, i.e. its use is justified. The NAP does NOT say everyone should never, ever use force (an unrealistic standard and moreover violated by defensive use of force), but rather that the initiation of force is morally unjustifiable, meaning it should be punishable. If you want to label the absolute non-existence of force the “NAP” such that no society could ever live up with it, that’s fine, but it’d also have nothing to do with the NAP. The NAP is the interpersonal ethical rule that the initiation of force is not justifiable. If someone a) uses it in defence or b) decides not to punish violations because they think it’d be pointless or counterproductive, that does not violate or challenge the NAP but merely means they decide to act a certain way that is within their rights and consistent with the NAP qua moral principle.

See the Holtz article, or any other critique. If there’s a huge disgusting factory right next door, polluting all over your land and crops (as is often the case in libertarian articles), then the Rothbard approach works. But things are rarely this clear cut in real life..

So because it is, say, difficult to prove harm in some cases, or highly costly to do so, this negates the NAP and Rothbard’s approach? Um, how?

[Cork]

One more post, then I have to go to bed. I’ll be back on tomorrow night.

If the NAP were really “challenged”, then rights violations would not be punishable. But they are.

So tiny rights-violations are punishable then? I’ve asked this a number of times and still have no answer.

The NAP does NOT say everyone should never, ever use force (an unrealistic standard and moreover violated by defensive use of force), but rather that the initiation of force is morally unjustifiable, meaning it should be punishable.

This isn’t addressing any of my (or Friedman’s) points.

So because it is, say, difficult to prove harm in some cases, or highly costly to do so, this negates the NAP and Rothbard’s approach? Um, how?

Because it’s impossible to get rid of all pollution, thus impossible for an absolute NAP to exist. Pollution is everywhere, as are its effects.

[Jon_Irenicus]

So tiny rights-violations are punishable then? I’ve asked this a number of times and still have no answer.

I said they are. Up to the alleged victim to prove their existence and the defendant’s guilt.

This isn’t addressing any of my (or Friedman’s) points.

Because Friedman is fabricating chimaerae where there are none.

Because it’s impossible to get rid of all pollution, thus impossible for an absolute NAP to exist. Pollution is everywhere, as are its effects.

Like I said, you are dealing with a strawman. I am not sure what you take the NAP to be. Pacifism? A non-pollution axiom?

[wilderness]

I thought there is a difference between NAP and NCP. non-aggression principle and non-coercion principle respectively… The former leads into non-law related incidences but can be voluntarily contracted within the societies (two or more people) area of control. The latter, NCP, is a law related incidence and is still voluntary, but clearly states force trying to suppress free-will. Sunlight can aggress, but it isn’t forcing itself upon others unnaturally. Pollution can be conceived as coercing upon somebody’s natural property, but…

I think the issue is between human concepts of what is naturally reasoned and what is not. Pollution can be naturally reasoned due to whatever is polluting upon the surrounding people is a trade off. Show how the pollution coerces against the person and property in a destructive way and a violation has occurred. CO2 is a pollutant. People exhale this. Yet, this is obviously natural. The person, in natural property, is unquestionably natural.

The property in which the person labors to make, the tangibles or alienable, is always questioned to be either natural or not. Intangibles such as intellectual thoughts are questioned as to their explanatory power to show if they represent a true natural law or not, too. The law of gravity has been tested repeatedly to be a natural law. Natural property is tested repeatedly as to whether it is a Natural Law of human nature or not. It is human nature to breath CO2, so, that much is clear. It’s a natural law of human nature. We exhale. This is of the unquestionable natural person or nature of the person. It is natural. Yet, the question is whether or not tangibles are natural or not. Coercing a person is unnatural. That’s what natural person/property stipulates. It is pointing out what is natural, in other words, what is of nature. So when does ones tangibles, alienable, and thus labors become unnatural? That’s the question. In other words, when does it violate any known or conceivable natural laws of human nature.

Now why don’t we question this: what if a human does breaks other Natural Laws, such as the law of gravity? Well, I don’t think we can know what is a violation of the rest of nature for that is to cross a boundary into trying to conceive what others in Nature find to be a violation. Basically it would be guessing and that leads us nowhere. It’s not reasonable enough unless we take into consideration when boundaries are crossed and I’ll further explain what I mean as follows. It is known to us when we violate nature when we corner a bear let’s say or to try to fly by jumping off a cliff (trying to violate the law of gravity this way leads you down to earth, probably death). The bear will most certainly come back at the person corning the animal and let the person know of the violation of a boundary. Get too close and the bear will surely let you know - he or she will kill you. Now what of a deer that runs or even attacks back (cause they do this at times if given the chance) when you are hunting them. Are you violating their nature? I would say no, because it is in our nature to eat and to violate nature for food is a natural event. Now this may get into vegetarians versus non-vegetarians for the vegetarian may argue how unhealthy and undigestible it is for a human to eat meat. That is a matter of choice for it is also obvious that humans can live off of eating animals. Does this come down to what is more healthy and therefore that is the measured basis of what’s truly in our nature or not? To eat meat or not. I would say too many factors are involved in contributing to health for this to be the sole indicator. Did the person exercise enough, drink enough water, and sometimes genes just give out quicker from person to person. Lastly about knowing when nature has been violated. If you build a house on a floodplain (like many people do along the Mississippi River) or in an earthquake prone region, then the person will need to handle the responsibility of this as well when the exchange or considered violation of space occurs and the river rises and destroys the house or the earthquake destroys the house. The ‘victims’ (floodplain, earthquake regions) have spoken, so to speak, and given proportionality retribution. And thus Natural Law brings justice, balances, and harmony is restored in each of these situations. That’s why we usually pass these events off as simply natural. I mean that’s exactly what I’m trying to state. These are natural events.

The area in which humans still have the most difficulty in realizing the answer to whether or not it is natural or not are tangibles, alienables, and thus, human labor activities and products. We reason laws of nature and thus human nature to find out what is universal about human nature. Natural property is the most current universal human nature given law status. So the silliness of CO2 exhaling and sunlight has clearly been shown above to be not violations of nature. They are natural events. But what of these human labors and products? If the person has been coerced, then yes violation, already discussed above. If the labored property has been coerced, yes violation. But what is doing the coercion? Is the coercing labor or product natural or not? I think that’s the legitimate question. The others are silly and I’ve shown why. This is exactly what natural law or human nature is all about. This is what whole systematic rational of the philosophy of nature is about. This is getting long so I’ll leave this with the unanswered question of deciding what is natural or not: “Is the coercing labor or product natural or not?” For if these are not natural and human nature is reason, and these labors and products are to come from human nature that reasons, the simple deduction is to question whether these labors or products violate human reason and are therefore irrational. How to define if the labors and/or products are a violation of human nature though born of human’s is to question whether the labors and/or products are perversions of our own human nature.

I’ll come back to the standing question later. Don’t want to make this post too long.

Standing question: Is the coercing labor and/or product natural or not, a perversion of human nature or not?

[whipitgood]

Hmm, as to your original question, does this not awnser it?

Aggression:

hostile attitude or behavior: threatening behavior or actions

Aggression by this deffinition renders your objection void, and clearly indicates that people CAN respond to threats (implied or dierect), not just actions.

In any case, I was using them interchangibly as well.

[MJongo]

I posted this in another topic, but it is relevant here especially:

Between (1) infringing upon another’s property and (2) claiming higher ownership of another’s property, only (2) can be used as justification for self-defense according to the NAP.

I have a rigorous proof for that claim:

1. There exists a property ‘a’ owned by a being ‘A’. There exists a property ‘b’ owned by a being ‘B’.

2. All property is composed of physical materials.

3. By the laws of physics, ‘a’ cannot infringe upon ‘b’ without ‘b’ infringing upon ‘a’.

4. (1) alone cannot justify either ‘A’ or ‘B’ alone to use self-defense, as any interaction between ‘a’ and ‘b’ can be claimed by both ‘A’ and ‘B’ to be aggression.

5. Therefore, between (1) and (2), only (2) can possibly be used to justify either ‘A’ or ‘B’ alone to use self-defense.

Practical implications:

(All assume an anarchical society with no prior agreements)

I have a soccer ball (my property) that ends up on my neighbors lawn (his property) by a gust of wind. I can validly claim that his lawn is infringing upon my ball, and he can validly claim my ball is infringing upon his lawn. However, I cannot claim ownership of his lawn any more than he can claim ownership of my ball. Therefore, self-defense can only be justified for him if I prohibit him from keeping his lawn nice, and for me if he does not return or permit me to retrieve my ball.

A man threatens me (my property) with a knife (his property). I can validly claim that his knife is infringing upon my body, and he can validly claim that my body is infringing upon his knife. However, he is using the knife to directly claim ownership over myself. I am not claiming ownership over him at all. Therefore, I am justified in using self-defense while he is not.

I (my property) am thrown on my neighbor’s land (his property) by a gust of wind. I can validly claim that his land is infringing upon my body, and he can validly claim that my body is infringing upon his land. However, as long as either one of us is willing to separate our properties, initiating aggression is the same as claiming superiority over the others’ ownership rights. If I voluntarily refuse to move, then I have claimed that my rights trump his and he is justified in self-defense. If he refuses to let me leave, then he has claimed that his rights trump mine and I am justified in self-defense.

The practical implications serve only as examples. Also, note that this only applies to self-defense. Damages to property should still be paid by each other. If anyone has any criticisms, please aim them at my proof. Thank you.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I hope you decide to read Kinsella’s article How we come to own ourselves because it presents reasoning similar to the above in very clear form. You’d benefit from reading it.

[MJongo]

@Jon Irenicus

I hope you decide to read Kinsella’s article How we come to own ourselves because it presents reasoning similar to the above in very clear form. You’d benefit from reading it.

I just did, and it was extremely interesting. I always wondered what different approaches existed for self-ownership for children.

[Juan]

@Cork

I agree with Block: nukes should be banned,

What about chemical weapons ? They are very easy to manufacture and quite effective. Maybe elementary chemistry should be outlawed ?

[MJongo]

The pollution problem is perfectly solvable by my logic:

If I belch and smelly fumes float into your nostrils, you can claim that they have infringed upon your body and demand restitution, small as it may be. I can counter-claim that those smelly fumes are my property and I want some cash for your body hoarding them. For tiny pollution, it pretty much cancels out, and because we cannot voluntary prevent it from happening, self-defense is not justified.

If I own a factory and its stank is making you physically sick, I could claim that your body is ruining a little of my waste and rightfully demand a tiny fee. However, I owe you the bill for every doctor that attributes the sickness to my pollution. Plus, if it is possible for me to clean it up for the same amount or less than the hospital bills, but continue to infringe on your health, I would say you are justified in self-defense.

[MJongo]

The more I think about this topic, the more it amazes me how simply these issues can be solved.

There are three distinct situations involving property damage:

(1): Damages caused by nature

(2): Damages caused by another involuntarily

(3): Damages caused by another voluntarily

(1) should not require restitution.

(2) should require restitution by the person(s) responsible.

(3) should require restitution by the person(s) responsible and allow for self-defense.

The rifle problem is now easily solved:

A man opens fire on a bunch of people (3).

I grab the privately owned rifle involuntarily (2), as I am acting in self-defense (3).

In the end, there has definitely been a breach of the rifle-owners rights, and I am directly responsible for involuntary damages. However, the gunman voluntarily coerced me to do it in self-defense, so my owed restitution is passed on to him.

[MJongo]

The light beam issue:

If I require the high-intensity light for some reason or another and it affects the neighbors, I would owe them for involuntary suffering damages. However, if the total cost of their damages is greater than the cost of blocking the light completely (and the sufferings I endure from having it blocked) and I know that, then I would be voluntarily causing extra damage and they would have the right of self-defense.

[MJongo]

@wombatron

Intent is irrelevant in this case. If I point a gun at you with my finger on the trigger, I am threatening you, whether or not I think it’s really a magic wand.

There are two sides to situations such as these:

(1): I could be pointing a gun at you but I think it is a magic wand

(2): I could be pointing a magic wand at you and you think it is a gun

For both cases, the pointee must be genuinely coerced for self-defense to be justified by my reasoning. If it is found that the pointee was just acting coerced, they are responsible for voluntary damages.

[liberty_student]

@Mingy Jongo

For both cases, it must be made clear to the pointer that the pointee does not want to be pointed at.

That’s wrong. You’re saying there is a positive obligation, rather than a negative one.

[MJongo]

@liberty student

@Mingy Jongo

For both cases, it must be made clear to the pointer that the pointee does not want to be pointed at.

That’s wrong. You’re saying there is a positive obligation, rather than a negative one.

What if the person is seriously feeling threatened?

I am going to let everyone here in on a secret: I am deathly afraid of earthworms. I dread walking in the rain, and it has affected my life negatively in countless ways. I would honestly rather be threatened at knifepoint than at wormpoint. Does it really make any difference what is used to coerce upon someone if they are genuinely being coerced?

EDIT: I realize I misworded my original statement. “it must be made clear to the pointer that the pointee does not want to be pointed at” should be “it must be made clear to the pointer that the pointee is being physically coerced, not just that he doesn’t want to be pointed at” Also, if it is found that the pointee was not genuinely coerced, but acting, he is responsible for voluntary damages.

[liberty_student]

@Mingy Jongo

What if the person is seriously feeling threatened?

You can tell someone not to point a worm at you, but if someone points a worm at you, and you feel you are threatened, you don’t have to issue a warning or admonition.

Can you imagine someone pulls a gun on you, and rather than moving away or to disarm that person, you ask them not to point the gun at you, by which time, they are pulling the trigger and killing you.

The notion of an armed society as a polite society means people would be VERY cautious not to make any threats, subtle or overt.

@Mingy Jongo

Does it really make any difference what is used to coerce upon someone if they are genuinely being coerced?

I’m not arguing that. My point is, you can’t translate a positive obligation onto the person who is being coerced to make a formal declaration against it, otherwise their self-defense is not valid.

[MJongo]

Thank you, I have corrected myself. I also assume that pulling a gun on a random person is understood as coercion just as ordering from a menu is understood that you are under contract to pay for your meal. However, as showing worms to other people is not usually understood to be coercion, I do not think one is justified in self-defense until they make it known that they feel coerced.