Why aren’t these two interrelated reasons?
What I mean is that the status of the non-aggression principle as a principle of justice would be explained not in terms of the inherent features of the principles itself, but rather in terms of the consequences of adopting the principle, which a teleological theory would cite as being morally necessary to promote. So in other words, it’s like how an act utilitarian might say that what’s wrong with having an abortion is understandable in terms of the net loss in utility produced by the act, rather than in terms of what happens to the fetus.
I anticipate the objection that the overall consequences of adopting a principle are inherent features of the principle itself, and I hope that you can spare me the argument if you understand basically what I mean.
P.S. Are you asking why I think that inherent principles of justice have nothing to do with social efficiency? If so, then I suppose I should clarify. I don’t think that overall consequences (taken in an aggregative sense) are the only things that matter, but they surely do count for something. What I meant to imply is that there are two ways of thinking of the non-aggression principle: either the non-aggression principle best facilitates social interaction and general wellbeing, and that’s why it should be adopted, or else the non-aggression principle best embodies the respect to which individuals are due, and that’s why it should be adopted. Certainly the way that individuals ought to be respected will have something to do with aggregate outcomes, but I don’t think that’s the only thing that matters in coming to that determination.
Now that’s effective hedging!
I already told you, I don’t care what “the many” think. They also seem to like “Dancing with the Stars” and I’ve never watched that even once.
No one is due anything from me. And likewise, I am not due anything from anyone else.
“A fundamental disrespect”? More nonsense. There is no respect due, fundamental or otherwise.
Who are “a lot” of people. Maybe I will change my mind, if it is really “a lot”. [8-)] I mean, these principles are solid in my mind, but like, if “a lot” of people think differently, well then I might be wrong. The earth really is flat.
Btw, there is no principle which justifies the use of force against someone who is an innocent third party. Unless you can prove the boat owner initiated force against the girl. Can you?
Re-read what you wrote. You are attempting to justify tyranny with egalitarianism. And you keep calling this a principle.
Sounds like the Road to Serfdom to me.
You have a disclaimer at the beginning and this at the end. The question is, do you really believe in due respect, egalitarianism, the use of tyranny, the initiation of force (under any circumstance) etc?
I posed my questions, simply and precisely. Yes or no answers would be appreciated. I’m sure you can fill in pages with explanations, examples and justifications after that.
I don’t believe that a community can develop without some amount of collaboration. But if it fails… well, then it fails. It’s sad, but then it’s time to move on. Although history shows that, except for natural disasters or plagues, most communities have been destroyed by the government, mostly from warfare or, today, welfare and “urbal development” (just look at the inner cities in America).
But that’s precisely what has been fueling socialism all along: there’re so many poor people and rich people obviously are not helping them enough, let’s make them give up more.
If people are comfortable with coercion on the local level, they won’t be fighting it on the national level. Soon, they’ll be fighting other civic centers for domination (that’s what happened in Ancient Greece and Rome, I think).
I think we should distinguish between individuals using violence in certain situations and instituationalized violence on behalf of a group towards everyone else. Individual use of force would be judged on a case by case basis. Someone who uses coercion to save the girl might be penalized, but hardly heavily, unless he physically hurts the boat owner. I guess the girls’ parents wouldn’t mind paying his fines 
It’s obviously moral to save someone’s life but the whole point of moral obligation that’s it’s voluntary. As soon as you make into a law that must be followed and set up a police force to enforce it, you can kiss good-bye to your freedom because the amount of coercion for different reasons (all moral, of course) can only grow from there.
I believe in a free society such behavior will be highly unlikely because helping others will be encouraged and people are generally more helpful in the societies when they’re not coerced in every little thing (compare Americans to any former socialist country).
The guy with the boat in no way has initiated coercion on anyone in the example. He has no positive obligation to surrender any of his property, or control of his property to save the kid, nor would it be right to use a gun to coerce him into using the boat.
That’s the ethical argument, as far as I understand it.
Now, in practical terms (real life, so to speak): many people would probably use the gun to force the owner to save the kid. Clearly, they would be guilty of violating the NAP and would have an obligation to compensate the owner of the boat (make him whole again) as far as is reasonably possible. The boat owner would in all likelihood face social ostracism for not wanting to save the kid and for demanding payment for the use of the boat.
Or simply let someone else handle their investments for them. I understand there’s plenty of investment advisors and managers out there, so I don’t see why government needs to force people to pay into a fund that gets diverted into their general funds account and thus, isn’t actually saved or invested for the future retiree.
Don’t worry, Obama will nationalize 401(k)s and give it to the most deserving.
I agree with you that the guy has no positive obligation, but in practical terms, I think it’s a lot more likely that social pressure would be a pre-existing condition, and the guy would feel guilty about letting the girl drown without trying to save her. At the very least, he would probably let someone else use his boat without needing to be forced. It would take a very uncommon and cold-hearted person who would allow the girl to drown without taking some kind of action.
However, I think it also might be more realistic that the boat owner might not actually realize the girl is drowning, or simply be paralyzed into inaction by the horror of the situation, and not be able to make a competent decision.
Even if we look closely at the original example, it’s not obvious why a gun needs to be used on the boat owner to force him to save her–even if he acquieces, he might not be very good with his boat or at getting someone out of the water, or he might deliberately delay acting or sabotage his boat to prevent the girl’s rescue. If either of these were true, then that would show that coercing the guy would not be the best way to save the girl, and might end up ensuring her death.
I would think that the first thing to do is simply ask him to rescue her or ask to use the boat so that you could rescue her. More extreme actions might prove to be unnecessary in order to save the girl.
heh. But 401k’s are government creations–what’s wrong with a plain old certificate of deposit? They tend to have a conservative rate of return, but they’re also low risk, and more sure than other types of investment.
That’s a reasonable and realistic perspective.
But would more extreme (coercive) actions be justified if necessary [sic]?
They are. But at least they’re privately owned so the government can’t spend it on what they want.
You mean bank CDs? But they’re also privately owned. You don’t want to let the government spend your money, you greedy bastard! 
Eep! Lots to respond to…Liberty student first.
If you don’t think that libertarian conceptions of rights are founded on the basis of due respect (as has been argued by prominent liberal and libertarian thinkers such as Locke, Bastiat, Rothbard, and Nozick), then what is the reason that we should acknowledge them? That was the reason for the proviso at the end: if you think that the non-aggression principle is the product of a teleological theory, then we would need to have a fundamentally different conversation.
I’ll hold off on responding to the rest of your post until you explain why you think we should accept the non-aggression principle, since it won’t do much good to say anything else until I know that. I will note, however, that I wasn’t saying that I am an egalitarian; what I meant was that the people who try to justify the tyranny to which you object do so on egalitarian grounds, not on the grounds of due respect. And also, the post beginning with “P.S.” was directed at Geoffrey.
Natalie, when I said “failed community,” I didn’t mean in the sense that it wasn’t continuing to survive. I meant that it was failing to function in a way that it perhaps ought to, namely: failing to hold members accountable for their failure to act as is allegedly morally necessary, and failing to produce allegedly morally necessary public goods.
It’s critical to recognize that socialism isn’t built on the idea that there are so many poor people, so the rich should give up more. Socialism is founded on the idea that through their state-protected ownership of the means of production, the capitalist class is able to exploit the proletariat by offering completely inadequate wages, which the workers will have to accept because they need to satisfy their animal needs. By making workers slave to their animal needs, the capitalists allegedly rob them of their species-being as humans, reducing them to mere beasts of burden. The socialist proposition is that by collectivizing the means of production, profits would no longer be diverted to exploiting capitalists, and would instead be shared by the people who produced those profits: the workers. This would allow everyone to pursue their dreams, rather than just the rich bourgeoisie, and would therefore be more just than the current system. I assume we all know what’s wrong with that argument, so I won’t bother to address that.
The redistributive argument I’ve cited doesn’t make any claim about exploitation, and does not imply that the wealthy do not deserve what they have. So therefore, it is fundamentally different from socialism, preserving only the element which suggests that people are not always morally justified in keeping the stuff that they legally possess. In this argument, the idea is that individuals who have a lot have a moral duty to help those in desparate need, because to fail to do so would be to fundamentally disrespect them as individuals. It’s just a different issue altogether.
As for the idea that localized coercion would make people more comfortable with being coerced by the federal government, I would actually expect the exact opposite to be the case. If people felt that their communities were taking care of the public goods that they needed to produce, and that they were addressing social problems in an appropriate way on their own, I would expect them to react rather hostilely to a distant official stepping in and trying to impose her will.
Regarding your response to the motorboat case, do you think that if the boat owner was not injured in a way that caused him to incur monetary expense, there would be any grounds for him to take action against the coercing individual?
FreedomIsYellow, I recognize that the response you offered follows from the non-aggression principle as traditionally conceived, but what’s at issue here is whether that response is an appropriate one given the facts of the case at hand. Don’t you think that if we would completely understand the actions of the coercing party, and would likely ostracize the boat owner, that it is an odd result that your moral system ends condemning the actions of the coercing party, and insisting that the boat owner’s actions were perfectly acceptable? That seems like the a pretty solid reductio to me.
If this is any consolation for you, the reason why I disappeared for a few days is that I went very deep into a leftist forum in order to gather info to properly write my blog article that I posted today. Many of the views I expressed in that forum were heavily influenced by what I have learned here at Mises so far. I got a few educated responses, but most responses were "you are a capitalist freak, etc. and they expelled me from the forum. I had to reenter the forum with four different new logins, making it known at the very beginning I was the previously expelled person, and all they did was to gather enough support from old-timers to kick me back out. In conclusion, they want no arguments, whoever goes there to challenge their faith is immediately expelled as they fear their shakily based views will be destroyed by anyone who opposes them!
Not at all. I never meant that. I just gave an opinion that some people are better investors than others and somehow this weird conclusion came up.
Not anyone can join any group either. For me groups and clubs are synonims. Synonims are words with the same or similar meanings.