Perhaps it is time to replace our basic tenant - the non-aggression principle, with a more general version, which says that “if you’ve done X, you cannot complain later if I do X to you”. So for example, if you threatened me with violence, you cannot later complain if I do the same to you. NAP doesn’t explain very well why threat of violence is a break of NAP, but the estoppel argument does. Also, if you attempted to murder me, you cannot later complain when I attempt to murder you. If we are talking about justice, I think estoppel is a lot more just than NAP. For example if person A attempted to muder person B and failed, and then person B decided to murder person A and succeeded. Under NAP person B will probably be guilty of murder, under Estoppel he would go free. I think that’s more just.
I’m not a fan of estoppel theory.
while it might sound like an ok policy, I think this policy fails when you apply reductio ad absurdum examples…
Imagine going to your parent and saying: If you made me wear diapers, you cannot complain whenever I decide to put diapers on you!
I can only say that the success of estopel vs. the NAP can only be shown in a competing arbitration market. A priori we might not say which concept will serve the market better.
I myself find the NAP to be esquisitely simple, but who can say what the market will find of its liking?
What’s your standard for justice, Eugene?
Also, the notion of estoppel implies a distinction between actions that it applies to and actions that it doesn’t apply to.
If I attempted to rob you but failed, and then you robbed you but succeded, would it be just to punish you for that? I don’t think so. Yet according to NAP it would be just.
me neither. But it’s still interesting concept. Just like perfomative contradictions etc..
waaaat, you got something wrong. Robbery is initiation of force and is always illegitimate. There is no such thing as “defensive robbery”, is there? You could claim for restitution, but you can’t claim to rob the criminal just because he tried first.
Eugene, please answer my question. What is your standard for justice? I’m looking for a definitive, systematic answer - I’m not going to try to infer your standard for justice from the above response.
Great point. Here we see that Eugene confuses aggressive violence with all violence. The terms “robbery”, “stealing”, and “theft” all inherently imply aggression. If someone stole a TV from me and I forcefully take it back from him, have I stolen anything from him?
I can’t answer your question, it is too abstract. I have no workable definition of justice and I don’t think anyone has.
Now, if I did X to you, can I then complain if you did X to me? Of course not. So if you attempted to rob me, you can’t complain if I attempted to rob you back. In other words if you proved to be a person for whom robbing is just, how can you later complain if I robbed you? That’s of course unless you claim that by attempting to rob me, you only considered attempted robbing as just but the robbing itself as unjust, but I think that’s just silly.
If you’re refusing to define a term that you’re basing this entire thread on, then I think we’re done here. What’s the point in debating with you if your implicit definition of “justice” is simply “I know it when I see it” (which is no real definition at all)?
Now, if I did X to you, can I then complain if you did X to me?
In real world, these two Xes will ALWAYS be different. You cannot do exactly the same X that was done to you, thus leading to all kinds of conflicting interpretations: “well, he did almost the same X”, “no, I did something very different from X”. Mathematically, you are looking for two random points (X-like acts) to coincide, which is improbable. NAP, on the other hand, only checks for one point (act) falling either into aggression area, or out of it - which is much more well suited for real world arbitration.
I see absolutely no advantages of replacing NAP with simple estoppel. Estoppel is a derivative complement of the NAP, and not its substitute.
For example, if a woman is raped, what good does it do her for the rapist not to be able to complain when someone rapes him?
In your robbery example, you are missing the “two teeth for a tooth” component. Even if the robber is unsuccessful, he is liable for damages that could include as much as he stole if he had been successful, plus possible damages for causing the victim to fear.
What you end up with in a system based solely on estoppel is simple retribution with no damages. If someone robs me, I shouldn’t just get back what he took, but twice that much plus some for psychological effects.
Andris, good comment, though NAP just doesn’t know how to deal with threat of violence or attempts to commit crime. You can’t use NAP to contain all libertarian elements, you can use estoppel however.
Matticus, wrong observation. If someone robbed you, he got your property illegally, so he is in possession of your property, which you can retreive. Taking what you own is not considered robbing, but you also have the right to rob him of HIS money. So two teeth for tooth element is not missing.
Also, it does a lot of good to a woman because she can hire someone to rape her rapist, or negotiate a compensation if he really doesn’t want to be raped.
My point is, these are not better options. These are less-effective and tedious options that ignore the value of trade specialization and pooled risk with a framework for future loss prevention (the courts).