At this point its semantics, but pesticides and the like are te result of an attempt to conquer vice working with nature where one wouldnt find it necessary to invent poisons.
You’re confused on the NAP. I think the root of your confusion is that you have conflated coercion with aggression.
There are two general types of coercion: aggressive coercion, and responsive coercion (which subsumes defensive and retributive coercion).
Aggressive coercion is the initiation of coercion/force on another human being for whatever reason. It is always illegitimate, it damages the attacked person’s right to their own body and owned things.
Responsive coercion is always a response to aggressive coercion, and seeks either to prevent an imminent aggression that’s threatened, stop an aggression in action, or punish a completed aggression. These are legitimate as they seek to enforce property rights, whereas aggression tears down property rights and is an attempted negation of them.
You can claim you don’t subscribe to the NAP, but you will in practice implicitly. Everytime you pay for food rather than steal it, everytime you walk around someone rather than pushing them out of your way, you endorse the NAP because you’re living by it.
To answer the OP, it seems to me that a person who rejected the NAP thinks he has a right to aggress over people. Which sounds to me much like the idea of noblesse oblige.
Which I think means that a person to negated the NAP as a premise of their individual philosophy would actually be in favor of total personal or state rule over everyone else.
In short, reject the NAP, or fail to apply it fully, and you get either a total state regime in the former or a mixed economy state in the latter, which is exactly what we have around the world.
The true failing of modern political philosophy and practice is the failure to make the state live by its own laws, laws that generally prohibit aggression.
The state makes theft illegal, yet taxes citizens to the hilt.
The state makes slavery illegal, yet conscripts soldiers and forces businesses to collect taxes for it without pay.
The state makes murder illegal, yet conducts wars the world over.
The NAP is the wedge we must use to drive between people and the state. It is a moral anchor. We must continually ask why the state should be allowed to do what citizens would not approve of between themselves.
here is where i think a mix of nap comes into play
if a government employee pays for food, are they breaking nap by accepting tax money as salery? tax breaking nap, and paying for food following nap. the employees job could consist of entirely tasks that don’t break nap, but they are paid by breaking nap.
now transfer it to be rent instead of taxes, and it’s no longer violation of nap. then taxes aren’t all violations of nap for each individual as some are fine with the taxes, just it’s not a unaminous decision. now nongovernmental situations are not neccicarily unanimous either.
sure we must manage social relationships and eat. this does not require being violent towards other humans or using force against them.
That’s simply not true. Slavery arose independently on different continents and among different societies precisely because violence is intrinsic to our psychology. Even now almost without exception slavery persists in all socieities, in the form of statism. Surely, you wouldn’t object to the use of defensive or retaliatory violence, would you?
At any rate, when I say conquer I mean it literally: to overcome, specifically to overcome obstacles to sources of pain and obstacles to pleasure. Conquering, whether it is a bad choice of words or not, may imply what I’m trying to imply: that force is used in the aim to overcome, when the social and environmental circumstances permit it.
Every indidividual homo sapiens is necessarily representative of homo sapiens.
Just because you come across a guy with one leg doesn’t mean homo sapiens are a one legged species. What matters are the patterns. Models with predictive capability are more powerful than those without. History shows more people with two legs. History shows humans have, unlike any other species of plant or animal, has manipulated his environment and has allowed violent, dominant hierarchies to arise and persist independently and even after trans-continental mingling.
Homo sapiens is a violent, conquering species. The violence and tendency to conquer is tempered by a variety of factors, not the least of which are the drive for social relations and environmental factors. Again, even peaceful people support defensive or retaliatory violence. Most people aren’t primitivists, so their support of such violence is precisely in the hopes that it will allow progress (more conquering).
slavery is not required, it’s a option, but not the only option.
you don’t think people can use free will to decide cooperate with each other?
if i say “work with me or go your own way”, have i forced you to do anything? the decision is your free will.
slavery is not required, it’s a option, but not the only option.
I think we’re not on the same page. Slavery is a brute fact of human reality. It arose independently, on different continents, in different societies, and persists to the modern day in all civilizations. If non-slavery, voluntaryism, was an option, it was utterly obliterated and ruthlessly annihilated, consistently eradicated from the halls of history.
you don’t think people can use free will to decide cooperate with each other?
Short answer: no. Medium answer: yes, in the sense that the unconscious majority of the brain is capable of deciding to cooperate with others, and subsequently the consciousnesses of any given individuals are capable of experiencing that choice. Whether people will cooperate is a different question, and history makes it brutally clear.
its funny you would say that, as voluntary interactions vastly outnumber coerced actions on any given day.
so the only relationship is that of owners and the owned, none between two owners or two owned or unowned people?
Slaves may interact voluntarily. That doesn’t mean slavery was abolished, or that voluntaryism is the rule.
Again, we’re all slaves regardless of which society we’re in. There is no voluntary society. Even if we meet up and exchange voluntarily, at the end of the day we’re slaves to our governments. Slavery persists. There is no voluntary society, because slavery and violent dominance hierarchies is the dominant paradigm among homo sapiens.
what definition of slavery is this?
the government does not own citizens in the usa. slavery is a ownership and property thing, citizens are not property of the state in the usa.
I think the defining characteristic of slavery is hegemony, not property. What makes a person a slave is that he is forced through violence or threats thereof. Anyway, if he is thus treated (against his will) as a factor of production, and controlled, what is he if not property?
“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a master once in a term of years.” —Lysander Spooner
so this is along the lines the anarchist communists that say anarchy can’t happen because of homosapian’s hegemonic nature. saying it’s imposable to not have hedgemony, they want their hedgemony. we are all slaves, pick your hegemony
In the case of slavery, the “master” (usually in conjunction with the state legal apparatus) is using force to prevent the “slave” from being able to leave the contract, in essence preventing him from exercizing his free will and freedom to associate. A slave is not able to say “ok, I quit” and leave.
Sounds a bit like prisons, conscription, public schools, jury duty, etc. doesn’t it?
So what Rothbard is calling “aggression” is the same thing as what you’re calling “initial aggression”. So there’s no contradiction in what Rothbard or any other anarcho-capitalist is talking about (in this regard). Does that make sense to you?
@ cab21
No, anarchism can happen because of human nature. But it hasn’t for important reasons. And it won’t any time soon for the same reasons. When the vast majority of the people worldwide begin to oppose hegemony, it will be because, like catalactics or economics, for two reasons: they can sympathize with it, and they can do something about it. The world will therefore be in such a technologically advanced state it won’t resemble today. It won’t be because homo sapiens all of a sudden is no longer violent and dominant, it will be because the tendency toward social relations is more valuable than the fruits of violence and dominance, and because communication will connect people in more of a hive mind environment.
Libertarians seem to acknowledge that libertarianism hasn’t been the dominant paradigm in history because violent dominance hierarchies have spread and persisted instead. The question is why? Because it’s part of human nature. A deeply rooted survival mechanism. And its not going away just because “it could in theory”. When it goes away, it will be because of the unnatural factor: technology.
humans are natural
humans create technology
human technology is natural
it seemed the communists discribed a aspect of hedgemoney as those that own private property or the means of production vs those that do not, how would technology solve this? libertarians don’t even call this relationship enherently violent and call the lack of aknoledgement of private property as something that leads to more violence i think.
we already have many relationships that are nonviolent in nature with a recognition of social cooperation over violent dominance. we have nap domination in ownership, but i don’t think that is violence against others.
people are allowed to quit and leave with their own property, but not the property of others in many relationships today.
I think youre trying to petitio principii again, with another equivocation, so I have lost interest in parsing your defintion of “slave.” there are a vastly greater amount of voluntary interactions than coerced interaction on any given day. I refuse to countenance your attempt to disregard this plain fact with arbitrary categories of people whose voluntary interaction somehow doesnt count.
there are a vastly greater amount of voluntary interactions than coerced interaction on any given day.
There are an astronomically, unthinkably greater amount of unconscious, non-consciously-controllable processes in the brain, and in the entire body, than there are conscious ones, and yet you would say something along the lines of "a person has “free” will".
But you’re just pulling a red herring anyway…so common on these forums 
I said if non-slavery, or voluntaryism was an option, it was obliterated. I didn’t say voluntary exchanges don’t occur. And it’s true, we don’t see voluntaryist societies, and the certainly aren’t the rule throughout history, and they certainly didn’t arise and persist on multiple continents independently.
irrelevant in the context of voluntarism vs slavery
no I wouldnt.
and youre wrong, obviously.
yes we do, and yes they do and yes they did, but I dont think you care about history nearly so much as your own ideas.