I’m wondering what argument everyone here uses to prove that the initiation of violence is immoral. Seeing as the nonaggression axiom is the basis of libertarianism, this is quite important.
Right now I’ve compiled four arguments:
1- The fact that most people viscerally know murder, theft, kidnapping, assault, etc. to be wrong.
2- The Randian argument that reason is man’s nature, and that he must be able to follow his reasoning to survive. Any coercion that deprives him of this ability also deprives him of his life.
3- The Molyneux argument of universally preferable behaviour.
4- The Rothbardian argument from self-ownership: Because the property owner has absolute jurisdiction over their property, for anyone else to violate their property is to deny their self-ownership and violate the rights derived from it.
Does anyone have anything to add to this?
I figure that if the argument from morality is deductively sound, all that remains is to engage the statists in a debate where they must adhere to logic: define terms, answer questions, no fallacies, syllogistic arguments etc. Then they will have no choice but to abandon statism.
The only way to establish a position is to rationally argue for it. Therefore, to be accepted, a position must be arguable. Suppose one holds that self-ownership is false, that is, that people don’t necessarily own themselves. Can he then argue for this position? Since he denies self-ownership, he must hold one of the following positions:
1-Everyone owns a part of everyone.
2-Some people own others.
The second is rejected as not universalizable. So the only alternative to self-ownership is 1. But then, he cannot argue for his position. To do so would involve the use of his vocal cords, lips, lungs, and so on, or else of his arms and hands to write. In either case, he will need to use property that he doesn’t own. To do that, he will need to ask permission of the owner - but again, to do that requires use of the organs of communication. So 1 is not arguable, and so the only position one can argue for is self-ownership.
First off, the non-aggression principle is not an axiom in the proper sense of that term. The NAP is a conclusion that requires justification, it is not an ultimate prescriptive premiss.
There are variations on the Aristotelian libertarian defense of rights. Rand’s is one of them. See also, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl’s. And Roderick Long’s. And my own, which is a synthesis of Long’s and R&DU’s. The relevant references and links have been posted on this forum several times so you shouldn’t have trouble finding them.
There is also Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, but I think it is ultimately too flawed to work.
This isn’t likely to happen for a variety of reasons.
This sounds like a variation of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. I think it is mistaken for reasons I’ve pointed out on this forum and elsewhere. You also make an interesting claim, viz., that certain views are not arguable. Well, plainly these views are arguable. Perhaps what you mean to say is that arguments for them ultimately cannot succeed, but this is a different matter entirely.
Also, the argument you make above depends on acceptance of the Kantian version of the universalizability principle, and Aristotelians don’t accept it.
It’s not ‘the initiation of violence’, but the initiation of force or coercion. Such force or coercion, or the threat of it, doesn’t necessarily have to be violent.
The four arguments you raise are all good ones, but people are not easily persuaded by mere logical argumentation. I wouldn’t want to persuade people just on emotional reasons, but I do think the emotional factors need to be employed in conjunction with logical arguments. Emotional factors will help make people less resistant to the logical arguments.
I find that saying “initiation of force” is problematic. For example, you can initiate force against someone by shaking their hand. F=MA. Rothbard made it very clear. He said that a crime is a violent invasion of just property.
Can you show an instance of coercion that doesn’t use or threaten violence?
I don’t see why there needs to be a proof; I certainly don’t think there is one, and I’m probably the most vicious enemy of the initiation of violence!
Well, to begin with, there is more to a good argument than strict logical deduction. Also important is the (classical) induction and concept-formation that comes before this.
Then there is the difficulty in getting key statists to engage in a debate that is public enough to have a widespread influence.
Then there is the difficulty of getting the key statists to engage in meaningful and open-minded discourse, meaning that to be really productive both sides in the debate would have to make a serious and concerted effort to be charitable toward their opponent’s arguments, to try to understand them on their own terms, how they might be using words differently, focusing on different things, etc. It’s a tall order.
Then there is the difficulty of getting them to not short circuit their rational thought processes in order to avoid coming to conclusions they don’t like. Human beings have a remarkable propensity to evade the truth by blanking out.
Then there is the difficulty of getting everyone else who watched the debates to do the same thing so that they too come to embrace the truth.
That’s fine until your opponent doesn’t believe in any such thing as ownership. Which I find most leftists do, especially the legal postitivists common in urban America.
I thnk I have one! I’ll post it in a bit. In my opinion, the biggest problem we have is the left’s brilliance at using definitions to their advantage (plus many libertarian’s insistence on “natural rights”).
Right. There’s no proof and there can be no proof. To know that aggression is wrong is a moral intuition. People who devote their lifes to find a logical argument against socialists or right-wing totalitarians are wasting their time in my opinion. Statism is of course nonsense if judged logically - that should be enough of a proof.
On the other hand, if you believe that violence is wrong then you believe in natural rights…
Naturally. Note that I agree with your argument - I have understood it instinctively as following the concept of ownership. But my point is that the very people who need to be convinced, when pressed to regard premise, will refuse the concept of ownership rather than accept its inevitable conclusions. If one is to be absolutely consistent, the argument boils down to “might makes right” vs. the non-aggression principle. And our opponents will quickly defend “might makes right” when it comes to that choice.
I think the point he’s making with “force” as opposed to “violence” is that force is not always violent, but is always an initiation of action that can justify violence in return. No offense, but shaking hands as an initiation of force is a straw man argument. First off, it is a cultural act of disarmament and a cultural peace symbol. Secondly, shaking hands is force which is mutually enacted against onesself as opposed to being enacted unwanted against another. On the other hand, if somebody deliberately blocks your path, that is an act of force initiated against you even though it is initially nonviolent. They have placed themselves in between you and your destination. Even though the action may not be considered to be scientific “physical force” exerted against you, they have still placed you in a position where you must act against your will, therefore they have exerted force against you from a logical standpoint. I don’t think you can tell me that you would not feel forced - threatened even - if a person, though having plenty of space to move around you, were to deliberately step into your path intent on stopping you from moving.
In the phrase “threat or use of initiatory physical force” the term ‘force’ is not being used merely as a technical term from physics. It involves doing something to someone without their consent. Initiating a handshake, though it clearly involves force in the technical sense from physics, is not what is meant: you are initiating force against someone by initiating a handshake unless they attempt to avoid it and you force it on them anyway against their will.
Obviously, if you only threaten violence, you’re not being violent. but fraud of various sorts are usually considered coercion, as well. If someone sells you something under false pretenses, you’ve been coerced (deceived) into buying something that you didn’t want to buy. Or consider simple burglarly. If someone breaks into your house and steals your television set when no one is home, no violence has necessarily been done, but your TV is no longer in your possession.