You haven’t even grasped the NAP yet, how could you possibly improve it? It’s very simple. Aggression is where there is a lack of consent. Cut and dried. Mingy, did you consent to this? No. Then it is aggression. Mingy, did you consent to that? Yes I did. Then it is not aggression.
It doesn’t matter if, Mingy I meant to punch you in the nose (intent). If you consent, it is not aggression. If you do not, then it is aggression. Whether I wanted to punch you in the nose, whether I wanted to break your nose, whether I wanted to pick your nose, is completely irrelevant. The behaviour is either consensual or it is not.
A good example is BD/SM. Someone wants the other person to beat and hurt them. This is consensual behaviour. Even if the party in control has the intent to cause pain and damage, if it is consented, it is not aggression.
Please don’t reply to me anymore. I don’t want to debate with you. All you do is play word games and waste time. It’s dishonest, and I’ve had it.
Find someone else to play with. I think just about all of the previous respondents have surrendered out of the utter futility but maybe you will get lucky and find a new sucker.
This is my last post. If someone answers it, great. If not, then oh well:
How can “consent” be determined objectively?
The NAP requires only lack of consent for something to be considered aggression. I say there are two sides of the story, and the NAP leaves out the intention of the do-er. If consent cannot be shown, then neither can intention. If consent can, then intention is in the same boat.
Mingy, did you consent to LS punching you in the nose?
“No, I did not”.
No consent.
Mingy, did you consent to LS punching you in the nose?
“Yes, I asked him to punch me in the nose until I passed out”
Lots of consent.
Mingy, did you consent to LS punching you in the nose?
“No I did not”
But LS says you did.
“Can he prove it?”
He has a signed contract from you, that you have consented to accept his nose punches.
“Oh…”
Mingy, did you consent to LS punching you in the nose?
“No I did not”
But LS says you did.
“Can he prove it?”
Nope.
“Well then he doesn’t satisfy the burden of proof then does he?”
Anytime I act with you or your property, the onus is on me to be able to prove I have your consent, otherwise you will be able to claim aggression. It is VERY SIMPLE.
If you can’t understand that, you’re on the wrong forum.
I hate to break my promise of “last post”, but I want to get this in:
I agree halfway. But there are two people involved; the one who performs the action and the one who receives it. The receiver is in control of consent. The performer is in control of intention. Aggression is always coercion. Coercion is not always aggression.
Consent + Intention = Positive Action
Consent + No Intention = Positive Accident
No Consent + Intention = Negative Action
No Consent + No Intention = Negative Accident
Under my system, Negative Accidents demand restitution, but only Negative Actions are Aggressions that can also allow retribution.
Under the NAP, or at least from the NAP you are describing, both Negative Actions and Negative Accidents are lumped under Aggressions. I disagree with that lumping, and is the reason that I prefer my system.
Nothing we experience is completely objective. So it goes to reason that claiming an ethical system fails when it allows for a tiny bit of subjectivity is absurd.
I really respect you, LS, but I can only feel insulted when you attack my system on the very same leg that the NAP stands on and say that only mine falls.
LS, I was under the impression that the libertarian view of restitution/retribution was “two eyes for an eye”… I think I read it in the Ethics of Liberty, but now I’m not so sure. I developed my system in response to that, because it seemed unfair to apply that to accidents.
But after reading these posts, I think I was under the wrong impression. Is restitution all that is needed for both aggressions and accidents? That would eliminate the need for intent, at least for my purposes.
I really can’t express how horrible I feel if I’ve been attacking a strawman the entire time…
I don’t believe punishment serves any value. I want full restitution, including my costs of collecting, my time. Beyond that, I have no claim to further retribution.
I told you several times, there is no blanket libertarian set of views. Only non-aggression could be considered common to most libertarians. There is a lot of diversity of opinion, of preference, and more. Non-aggression provides a massive canvas to plot out social theories against.
Well, in the Ethics of Liberty Rothbard argues that thieves can’t object to paying an amount equal to the amount they originally stole + giving back what they stole, so yes two eyes for an eye.
Wow. This is going to sound really stupid, but here goes.
I read the “eye for two eyes” thing somewhere while researching libertarian thought, and was immediately appalled. I had always thought myself that restitution to the victim is all that was needed. So what did I do? I tried to compromise and ended up with a system that was twice as complicated. [:S]
I am really sorry for all the chaos I’ve caused. If anyone wants to give me a second third chance, I encourge visitors to look at this topic:
It’s just a short thing I wrote about a topic in game theory and its implications.
I want to say my final opinion on the soccer ball controversy.
The ball is in my neighbor’s yard by my actions. I must pay restitution for damages. It sits there untouched by me until (1) I agree to tresspassing/service fees, (2) my neighbor agrees to buy it, or (3) I get some kind of contraption that lets me reach it without touching the ground. I still do not think it is automatically owned by the neighbor.
It’s in his yard. It’s now his ball. He can give it back to you, and he probably will because he has an interest in being a good neighbor. But he is under no obligation to recognize property no longer in your possession.
Change the ball to your candy wrapper or an anti-freeze spill, and see how far that gets you. And no, this is not a debate I actually want to have.