Ontologically superior? I believe that it would be wrong to attempt or contemplate assaulting God, regardless of whatever claims one might believe one to have against Him. I dont know what other context in which someone could be my superior and be relevant to the discussion at hand.
Jargon,
No I understood what you meant, and I still say that it’s because of the society that I advocate libertarianism, it’s just that usually people get chewed up around here for not being really clear and explicit with their wording, especially on topics such as this.
what would the minarchy be without nap? the nightwatchman concept that i am familar with is the ayn rand one which has its at least simular to nap philosophy.
with the republic idea
a populations is free to do any but…
a government is only free to do what is delegated to the government and all powers are reserved.
so constitutional republic would be the closest i can say i would do
@ Neodoxy - So nightwatchman then?
@ Cab- Ok, but which powers would be granted to the government in the constitution?
@Jargon - I think such a proof would require one to assume that attributable consequences to an act have a finite timespan. I disagree, and by way of example tender an ideological viewpoint. Consider, arguendo if you must, that violence tends to be historically notable and traumatic to the aggressor as well as the victim. Now consider the long-term effect of a series of violent acts on increasingly pacifistic victims. Suppose that the terrible crimes against humanity reached a sympathetic worldwide audience and that violence of all types became socially unacceptable, much as the greater part of the world rejected slavery just a few short generations ago. Given this viewpoint, one might not endorse self-defense. Also consider that cost-benefit calculations would preclude defensive violence for many people who believe in concepts such as reincarnation and karma.
to answer your question, in tne event of such a proof I doubt I personally could object to their violence. But given larger, perhaps theological beliefs, i can understand why an individual might coherently object.
“So nightwatchman then?”
Under some circumstances, yes, but under most circumstances anarchism, or minarchism as a transitional stage to that point.
Yes of course, many individual functions, but at the cost of others. For example, in the short-term it might be able to provide good x for cheaper than the market, but at the expense of the production of other goods (through taxation, inflation etc.), and also at the expense of the production of good x in the long-term (due to bureaucratism, lack of competition, calculation problem).
The question is difficult to answer beyond that since I don’t know what the starting conditions in fact are. Are they people from the West of today? England of the 18th century?
I’m inclined to answer no to this question, but I’m wondering what you mean by “more desirably”? Do you mean more desirably to me?
What distinction, if any, do you make between “aggression” and “violence”?
rejecting nap because of responsive control seems to be the same as siding with a rapist should the rapee prevent the rape. is the rapee just supposed to say “i don’t approve, but i don’t want to impose and control you so i will submit mr rapist”?
@ Autolykos
What distinction, if any, do you make between “aggression” and “violence”?
I use the term aggression because it is what’s referred to by the non-aggression principle. If it was called the non-violence principle, I suppose I would use the term ‘violence’.
@ cab21
The rapee is free to use whatever violence he deems important. But he shouldn’t invoke some magical “morals” or “rights”. Let him do what he will based on the cost:benefit algorithm his brain has arrived given the society he does/doesn’t value to various extents on various levels.
The phrase “you get in where you fit in” is ultimate. It explains so much of the reality of homo sapiens. Some people can fit in by manipulating others, and so they invoke morals to get in that way.
that cost benefit analisis has to do with what surrounding people accept. a people that side with a rapee rather than a rapist would likely be preferable to many people. if a rule against rape is manipulation, then people choose to be manipulated as part of a cost benefit analises, that it is preferable not to rape.
what word do you want to use for a societys accepted practices? morals are the judgement of human action, so there would have to be some common judgements that people would find preferable. judgements aren’t magical, but they can be common and shared by a community.
I don’t believe the NAP is something that is simply “abided by” - it is a basic principle that cannot be divorced from the concepts of fairness and justice or right and wrong. To deny it at it’s most basic level requires a psychopathic personality. But people can be easily hoodwinked into denying it when a little creativity is employed.
The “problem” with the NAP is that it is sometimes viewed as inconvenient when people desire a contrary course of action. Sometimes people want to do things like that. At this point the NAP is usually reified into some abstract value system, like Budhism or something - rather than a principle or axiom inherent in functioning of “peaceful interaction” - and discussed using broad collectivist terms outside the domain of individual actions.
But maybe a more interesting question would be “when would you, personally, disregard the NAP for your own benefit?” What would you do for a Klondike Bar? What would the Devil have to offer for you to sign on the dotted-line? (I’m an atheist, mind you). But that’s a different question than the one you’re asking - isn’t it?
EDIT (heh, figured I throw one of my own in): thnk of the rattler on the Gasden flag. That embodies the NAP.
Okay, but that doesn’t answer my question. So I’ll ask it again: what distinction, if any, do you make between “aggression” and “violence”?
The reason I ask is because you’ve asserted that the non-aggresion principle “[seeks] to use aggression to enforce some moral standard”. To me that implies that you consider the words “aggression” and “violence” to be synonymous. While you’re free to do so, most people who believe in the non-aggression principle seem to do otherwise.
@ cab21
that cost benefit analisis has to do with what surrounding people accept.
And what people accept is influenced by what manipulation they’ve been subjected to. My point is that the purpose of the concept of morals is to manipulate people to suppress the natural drive to conquer everything (the insatiable demand for liberty and power).
Rape isn’t “wrong”, whatever that would mean. Rather, people have spread propaganda (for better or worse is irrelevant) about how we shouldn’t rape. People who don’t understand the fact/value dichotomy stop there and accept the moral propaganda. Others couldn’t care less (politicians, and thugs—but I repeat myself), and will rape. Others simply acknowledge the drive to have sex with whomever they want whenever they want, but are mature enough to temper it for rational reasons: because they’ve experienced suffering and project their suffering onto potential rape victims, or because their friends wouldn’t like them if they rape people, and so forth.
what word do you want to use for a societys accepted practices?
This is—to borrow a phrase from Thunderf00t—a malformed question. “Society” doesn’t have accepted practices. Society is made of individuals of the genus homo sapiens. The natural drive for homo sapiens is to conquer everything (aka to satisfy the unlimited demand for power and liberty), tempered by the drive to have social relations, restricted by the same drives/temperaments of others, manipulated by others, all subject to environmental factors. Environment is key, which is why I always bring up the crusoe-rased-in-a-cave scenario.
Sorry for the double post, I was trigger happy and forgot to respond to this.
I’m using aggression as synonymous with violence in the same way as Rothbard, because I’m going by his definition of the NAP: “No man may initiate aggression against the person or property of another.” He didn’t say use aggression, he said initiate aggression, because he supports the use of certain types of aggression (aka violence, if you prefer). For example, he supports “defensive” or “retaliatory” aggression, but not “initial” aggression.
do you consider this insatiable demand to be an axiom in your system? Or is it something you might care to justify?
An axiom, the fundamental, natural psychology of homo sapiens. Our drive is to conquer everything, tempered by our drive to have social relations. This is probably the drive of all genes, but homo sapiens happens to be the most resilient, robust, capable, intelligent.
Okay, then using your semantics, I think the “non-aggression principle” should be more accurately called the “non-initiatory-aggression principle”. Does that make sense?
Yes. Or the non-initial-aggression-principle. Or whatever.