The non-aggression principle necessitates a concept of self-ownership. If ancap is based around the non-aggression principle (which it is) and self-ownership (and it is, or do I repeat myself) then it’s pointless to use “if”, since we’re specifically speaking about ancap.
Whether or not it is solved with customary law or polycentric order in practice, avoids the question of principle.
If I see you getting stabbed, I’m getting in the way.
You can take me to jail! Lock me up! Throw away the key!
I aint afraid to… oh wait…
To be frank, if you find the word “sucks” to be too risqué, then you’re the one with the bunched-up “undies.”
If you have principles you wish to apply (and you do), then these situations should already be resolved for you; that’s the essence of having principles.
Frankly, I still don’t believe anarcho-capitalism is based on the “non-aggression principle,” and my point from the very start here is that there are cirumstances where it can’t be easily applied.
If, as you claimed yourself, you haven’t reached a “conclusion” on these issues, then you’ve found your own principles to be insufficient.
Right, so you’re more interested in complaining than reaching a solution. If you feel there is still an issue, contact Lilburne.
Please understand what principles are, and what they are not.
Regardless of what you choose to believe, Friedman’s anarcho-capitalism has non-aggression implied, because without non-aggression, it’s impossible to have a free market.
My principles aren’t what is not sufficient, what is not sufficient is my understanding of whether children qualify as fully human and if not, at what point do they. Those aren’t questions answered by the non-aggression principle.
Have I said anything that violates the meaning?
Friedman advocates stealing a gun to shoot a madman.
Re-read my response.
Non sequitur.
If you want to have a conversation, please make a sincere effort to comprehend and stay on topic.
If you do not understand how to apply the NAP to children, then the NAP clearly fails in guiding your moral conduct.
Additionally, I’m not sure how proving that Friedman doesn’t consistently apply the NAP is a non sequitur. You attempted to smuggle him into your ideology; you failed.
Again, this is a non sequitur.
It is a non sequitur, because I never appealed to David Friedman’s preferences. I was very clearly talking about his conception of anarcho-capitalism, as opposed to Rothbardian ancap, which is clearly all about non-aggression.
Also, I didn’t smuggle him in, I was trying to head off your inevitable appeal to authority.
So, what is ancap if you don’t “believe” it has to do with non-aggression? It seems to me, you’ve got the dominant Rothbard school, which is all about non-aggression. And you have the Friedman school, which implies non-aggression by arguing free markets.
So, fill us in.
Or you can also hide behind grandpa Wiggenstein’s pantleg again, and try to claim that words don’t have specific meanings, and we can repeat the circular dance of you posting so many words, while you simultaneously claim words have no precision whatsoever.
My only point is that I know there are circumstances where I would not conform to the NAP (e.g., David Friedman’s example of a stealing a gun to stop a madman), hence I do not believe that non-aggression can be uniformly (i.e., deontologically) applied to the real world.
I would claim that free markets do honor the non-aggression principle, but that’s simply an unintended consequence, not the outcome of moral deliberation.
Then morally, you’re not an ancap. And if you violate free exchange and property rights by choosing aggression, I don’t think you have a very solid case for being an ancap on utilitarian grounds since you abandon it whenever it is inconvenient. That is, it does not provide utility to you else why would you abandon it?
This is what I was getting at before. It’s not possible to debate morality or ethics with you, because you don’t have any principles. If I am wrong, then tell us what your moral principles are.
By definition, a free market has to be without aggression. Involuntary exchange is not a free market. This has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with logic. Any serious utilitarian should be able to tell A from not A.
I understand that an appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy. The issue is with the meaning of the word “appeal”. To me it implies intent, to you it apparently doesn’t (which I can’t understand). However, I’m not forced to use your definition of “appeal”, so I will continue to use my own. I will repeat ad infinitum that, because I wasn’t trying to elicit a certain emotional response from you, I made no appeal to emotion. Any emotional reaction you may or may not have had is irrelevant to me.
Perhaps you’d like to make a less cryptic response here.
It’s not that we’re supposed to – it’s that we apparently do.
Excuse me. I said that I could imagine such a society. That in no way equates to me saying that I think that’s what “ancap” will look like. Surely, as one who seems to be familiar with logical fallacies, you can see the fallacy there.
Again, I find this response to be rather cryptic. Are you really trying to help me understand your position? Can you please be clearer?
I hope you don’t think I was necessarily taking it personally. Rather, I was trying to discern your meaning.
“Sufficient” in whose opinion? Not mine. So if you’re actually interested in helping me to understand, you’ll do what I find to be sufficient there.
“The only way a NAP society works” makes no sense to me. What exactly is “a NAP society” to you? What’s your meaning of “works” there?
Do you get where I’m coming from now?
Can they defend themselves in court? Do they understand property rights?
Perhaps!
However, since when are the ability to defend oneself in court and/or understanding property rights the conditions for self-ownership?
And here I thought what put people off about anarchism was that there would be no government.
I am as much an anarcho-capitalist as David Friedman; I consider my moral philosophy to strongly resemble his. I would claim to be a moral nihilist, actually (more euphemistically, a moral skeptic), and I advocate principles–insofar as I do–on purely pragmatic grounds, insisting upon generally desirable outcomes. I personally desire wealth-maximization (i.e., social welfare) more than most other values, and I build my arguments on that.
I would pragmatically advocate for contractual freedom, but I do not hold that principle deontologically.
You sure do love using that “A is A” talking point. I fully agree that your example has “nothing to do with morals.”
If it is not a requirement, then animals, plants, and rocks alll have rights. Or you must claim that being human grants you rights, but that would then mean that an intelligent alien species could not have rights, because they are not human. Which one do you pick? Your choice.
(For clarification, one does not have to defend one’s self in court, just intelletually defend one’s right to property)
Can you please answer my question directly?
Aside from that, why do I have to consider the hypothetical case of an intelligent alien species? Otherwise, I take the position that morality is a concept that applies to humans exclusively. This is an assumption/premise, not a conclusion.
There’s also the rationis capax standard, a la Frank van Dun.
I don’t have a specific date for you. If this is not the answer you are looking for, then please re-word your question.
Brodie (answered directly)