So to be on the same page, were merely concerned with what is right or wrong? Then I would say that quite a few of these scenerarios have been fuzzy, or grey. Get my drift?>>>>
well I dont remember advocating any laws. And moral scenarios are only fuzzy when they are not well understood or well defined. Thats what this process is supposed to clarify.
Isn’t this the very point I’ve been trying to make all along?>>>>
would you consider that to be a moral act or an immoral act?
Is labeling a bottle “potable water” and actually mixing poison into it aggression?
I think fraud would be more likely, you could potentiall through intent to harm/agress in there as well, if you could prove they did so knowingly.
You steal the truth component when you write a fiction novel and sell it as biography. People might be “entertained” but they did not intend to purchase a comic book. They wanted a biography.
The differene here is trading a resource e.g. commodity of exchange for a physical object e.g book. As opposed to your earlier situation of time for words.
The wrong only occurs when you attempt to provide false information to someone who desires true information and it is not necessary to defend yourself.
I wouldn’t argue with this. It’s when the jump is made from wrong to crime that I think it becomes interesting. And it is my impression now that you were not making this jump?
earlier you suggested that aggression was ok sometimes so obviously you do not subscribe to the NAP.
I think one can be aggressive and still subscribe to the NAP. I understand that sounds contradictory, but the way I look at it, is that the NAP is a rule. I can choose to follow it or not follow it. If I choose to not follow it, I must suffer the consequences e.g. compensate for contradicting the NAP. If I compensate I would view it as restored. The NAP doesn’t explicitly say this, but I think it is implicitly assumed.
who is “we”? Certainly not austrians.
Austrians, libertarians etc. Still I think its an interesting idea. Why can’t one go to court and demand compensation for lost time if you could prove you gave time and the old person was to tell you the truth and they lied? ^^
would you consider that to be a moral act or an immoral act?
Well, on the one hand, since I’ve moved on from the NAP, and those sort of ethics, I’ve moved away from right and wrong. But if I had to make a judgement I would lead to morally wrong. I think my answer would depend on how much “immoral action” (property rights violation) had been committed to swap the diamonds.
The differene here is trading a resource e.g. commodity of exchange for a physical object e.g book. As opposed to your earlier situation of time for words. >>>>
they still got the book! The information was incorrectly represented. Although this is axiomatic because the label that says “biography” is also a lie.
I think one can be aggressive and still subscribe to the NAP. I understand that sounds contradictory, but the way I look at it, is that the NAP is a rule. I can choose to follow it or not follow it. If I choose to not follow it, I must suffer the consequences e.g. compensate for contradicting the NAP. If I compensate I would view it as restored. The NAP doesn’t explicitly say this, but I think it is implicitly assumed.>>>>
what if I choose to continually defer consequences for aggression until someone captures and punishes me? Is it possible to adhere to the nap and spend your entire life as a parasite and go out like colonel gaddafi?
Still I think its an interesting idea. Why can’t one go to court and demand compensation for lost time if you could prove you gave time and the old person was to tell you the truth and they lied?>>>>
burden of proof. People get compensated for lost time by courts all the time. It would appear that almost everyone considers time to be a resource.
hey still got the book! The information was incorrectly represented. Although this is axiomatic because the label that says “biography” is also a lie.
What am I missing here?
what if I choose to continually defer consequences for aggression until someone captures and punishes me? Is it possible to adhere to the nap and spend your entire life as a parasite and go out like colonel gaddafi?
Well there is a time limit on how far you can defer consequences. In most polycentric societies there is a system in a place that allocates time and procedure. If you try to defer past that, you increase the chances of becoming an outlaw and losing all your rights. So again there is a context to this. Its not an absolute rule. Nice try though 
iCwatudidther. So for that old trickster colonel gaddafi (and by trickster I mean murdering tyrant), I think went to outlaw status pretty damm quick.
burden of proof. People get compensated for lost time by courts all the time. It would appear that almost everyone considers time to be a resource.
Can you link me an example? I don’t doubt it. Did any non-statist legal systems practice this?
What am I missing here? >>>>
the information was a lie and therefore immoral. This is a corrollary to the NAP where “fraud” is equated to “force.” the correlation is discovered when deliberate deception results in physical loss, the same as if the act had been physical aggression instead of fraud. Cases involving fraud but not discernable loss are difficult or impossile to punish but still “wrong.” all of which rests on the nap (an assumption) and the corrollary (which is arguable but not completely rigorous). Since you said you dont believe in right and wrong I lost interest, I dont see a discussion with an amoralist on the reasons why “lying is wrong” to be profitable tonight, since I would have to establish that moral behavior is profitable behavior over the long term. Its a lengthy process.
Well there is a time limit on how far you can defer consequences. In most polycentric societies there is a system in a place that allocates time and procedure. If you try to defer past that, you increase the chances of becoming an outlaw and losing all your rights.>>>
but according to you, if I accept whatever consequences they manage to force upon me at some point in time, I am still a libertarian who adheres to the nap, right?
So for that old trickster colonel gaddafi (and by trickster I mean murdering tyrant), I think went to outlaw status pretty damm quick.>>>>
I assume you are referring to how quickly his fortunes turned after 42 years of relatively successful aggressive dominance. Did he adhere to the NAP all that time?
Can you link me an example? I don’t doubt it. Did any non-statist legal systems practice this?>>>>
http://www.philipsaunders.com/TheFirm/Publications/EconomicDamages/tabid/98/Default.aspx
I am not aware of any judgments with respect to lost time from private courts at this time
Since you said you dont believe in right and wrong I lost interest, I dont see a discussion with an amoralist on the reasons why “lying is wrong” to be profitable tonight, since I would have to establish that moral behavior is profitable behavior over the long term. Its a lengthy process
It’s complicated. But for the last time, I don’t have a problem with right and wrong. I misunderstood you to be making the claim that these things should be prohibited. Not merely that they were wrong. Thats what I took issue with. I don’t take issue with an ethical claim, that these are wrong. I take claim with the jump from that, that these should be illegal. Do you or do you not understand this?
but according to you, if I accept whatever consequences they manage to force upon me at some point in time, I am still a libertarian who adheres to the nap, right?
I think its makes the NAP “whole”. Thats the best way I can describe it. What it really means though is regardless of what you are and what you adhere to, its more just that the NAP would still be “working”.
BTW just so were clear, I came up with this as a defense of the NAP for lifeboat situations. For any society, the reality is that the NAP is more of a guilding principle for any individual in a society to act, but laws, etc, are more likely to arise out of contracts. e.g. Xeer.
“I assume you are referring to how quickly his fortunes turned after 42 years of relatively successful aggressive dominance. Did he adhere to the NAP all that time?”
o.O How did you get that from what I said? I never claimed he adhered to the NAP. “He went to outlaw status pretty quick” This means I think he violated enough rights within such a time as to beyond the legal system. Hence an outlaw. How did you not understand that?
It’s complicated. But for the last time, I don’t have a problem with right and wrong.>>>>
then could you explain what you meant when you said “I’ve moved on from the NAP, and those sort of ethics, I’ve moved away from right and wrong.”?
I dont have a problem with other people’s ethical systems unless they affect me. But I havent “moved on” from ethics and the only way I know to refer to someone who has is an “amoralist.”
I take claim with the jump from that, that these should be illegal. Do you or do you not understand this?>>>>
Yes, I never mentioned making it illegal. You made the jump first in this thread.
I think its makes the NAP “whole”. Thats the best way I can describe it. What it really means though is regardless of what you are and what you adhere to, its more just that the NAP would still be “working”.>>>>
please explain further, I dont quite see what you are getting at. Also, it would be helpful if you answered my question so I can get where you are coming from
BTW just so were clear, I came up with this as a defense of the NAP for lifeboat situations.>>>>
so if you and I are stuck in a lifeboat on the high seas, and I kill you and eat you without your consent, and pay damages to your wife and kids when I return. To civilization, according to you I was in complete meta-adherence to the nap that entire time?
How did you get that from what I said? I never claimed he adhered to the NAP. “He went to outlaw status pretty quick” This means I think he violated enough rights within such a time as to beyond the legal system. Hence an outlaw. How did you not understand that?>>>>
Ok, how did he violate the nap? he appeared perfectly willing to pay legally negotiated damages in the 2000’s, why would we assume that he wasnt in the case of his actions in. 2011. Essentially, because his nation was in rebellion, he was in a lifeboat situation as well. So basically I want you to explain to me the limits on your interpretation of the nap, if they exist. How exactly is gaddafi not a libertarian by your definition?
then could you explain what you meant when you said “I’ve moved on from the NAP, and those sort of ethics, I’ve moved away from right and wrong.”?
I dont have a problem with other people’s ethical systems unless they affect me. But I havent “moved on” from ethics and the only way I know to refer to someone who has is an “amoralist.”
I think the entire problem with our discussion is that I’m looking at this from the perspective of how these ethical systems affect the legal system. Your merely concerned with the ethical system. So when I say I’ve moved away from the NAP and natural law based ethics systems, I mean I don’t believe that a society free of the state would be the legal code devised in Rothbards “Ethics of Liberty”. When I say I’ve moved away from right and wrong, I’m saying several things. A lot of actions seen as immoral e.g. nudity, drug use, language, flag burning etc, I don’t see that as right or wrong, good or bad. Furthermore, I think some things are grey or fuzzy, not clearly right or wrong. And finally, I’m more concerned with whats practical, reality, i.e. the legal codes rather then what is right or wrong.
Yes, I never mentioned making it illegal. You made the jump first in this thread.
Is it really so hard to make? Most people equate wrong with should be illegal. ^^
please explain further, I dont quite see what you are getting at. Also, it would be helpful if you answered my question so I can get where you are coming from
Well, people would often criticize the NAP because they thought it couldnt handle lifeboat situations because it didn’t allow people to aggress. or it resulted in silly things being labeled aggression e.g. Friedman and the laser on the door. But my point is, there is no super natural power preventing you from breaking the NAP. So in situations where it would make sense to i.e. the guy that wakes up hanging from window ledge, and feels he must “break and enter” to preserve his own life, would do just that. He would break the NAP. But I’m saying this isn’t a big deal, because he could be charged and forced to pay restitution. And the “reality” is, that if the lifeboat situation is how it is depicted, and depending upon the damages, he might be forgiven, or the insurance company of the guy who broke and entered might cover him, because perhaps he was abducted etc.
so if you and I are stuck in a lifeboat on the high seas, and I kill you and eat you without your consent, and pay damages to your wife and kids when I return. To civilization, according to you I was in complete meta-adherence to the nap that entire time?
Well now you have entered the legal world.Perhaps my family would demand your death. But as long as you addressed the grievance in the end you adhere to it. But not during the entire time. Lets assume that what you did is wrong (we actually have some good court cases where this happened and the general public though them innocent because of the context), I think you initially broke it, but then you ended up adhereing to it adressing the grievance.
Ok, how did he violate the nap? he appeared perfectly willing to pay legally negotiated damages in the 2000’s, why would we assume that he wasnt in the case of his actions in. 2011. Essentially, because his nation was in rebellion, he was in a lifeboat situation as well. So basically I want you to explain to me the limits on your interpretation of the nap, if they exist. How exactly is gaddafi not a libertarian by your definition?
How exactly is Gaddafi a libertarian by anyones definition? o.O I would say he violated the NAP as soon as he took control of the state. And in order to right the wrong, the state would be deconstructed. He can’t just steal A’s money to compensate B and then continue to rule. The negotiated damages you are referring to was lockabee. But I’m not sure if that necessarily was full compensation. Was his life on the line? No.
I think the entire problem with our discussion is that I’m looking at this from the perspective of how these ethical systems affect the legal system. Your merely concerned with the ethical system. So when I say I’ve moved away from the NAP and natural law based ethics systems, I mean I don’t believe that a society free of the state would be the legal code devised in Rothbards “Ethics of Liberty”. When I say I’ve moved away from right and wrong, I’m saying several things. A lot of actions seen as immoral e.g. nudity, drug use, language, flag burning etc, I don’t see that as right or wrong, good or bad. Furthermore, I think some things are grey or fuzzy, not clearly right or wrong. And finally, I’m more concerned with whats practical, reality, i.e. the legal codes rather then what is right or wrong.>>>>
very interesting. You do not think concern with the fundamentals of right and wrong is practical, and you think we can have just law? How are we to define how a law is just without first agreeing on some basic moral standards?
Is it really so hard to make? Most people equate wrong with should be illegal. ^^ >>>>
most people are not libertarians or ancaps. Most libertarians and ancaps recognize that law is not a remedy for every ill.
Well, people would often criticize the NAP because they thought it couldnt handle lifeboat situations because it didn’t allow people to aggress.>>>>
how exactly is this a criticism? What lifeboat situations require an aggressive solution?
But my point is, there is no super natural power preventing you from breaking the NAP. So in situations where it would make sense to i.e. the guy that wakes up hanging from window ledge, and feels he must “break and enter” to preserve his own life, would do just that.>>>>
well if you wake up in a trap and have to destroy part of the trap to escape, you certainly didnt violate the nap. The guy who put you in a trap is responsible for restituting damaged property. But that doesnt give you license to aggress. If you think aggresson is “ok sometimes” then you do not adhere to the nap.
How exactly is Gaddafi a libertarian by anyones definition? o.O I would say he violated the NAP as soon as he took control of the state. And in order to right the wrong, the state would be deconstructed.>>>>
he paid with his death, and the state is being reconstructed by the people right now. I want you to explain how he is not a libertarian by your definition, where aggression is permitted as long as an attempt at restitution is made at a future date.
But I’m not sure if that necessarily was full compensation. Was his life on the line? No. >>>>
Obviously his life was on the line since he is dead now as a result of his aggressive actions. So how is that different from your relatives demanding my death? Gaddafi appears to be a libertarian by your definition until you define libertarian in a way that excludes him.
very interesting. You do not think concern with the fundamentals of right and wrong is practical, and you think we can have just law? How are we to define how a law is just without first agreeing on some basic moral standards?
Just has to be voluntarily agreed upon. e.g. contract based law such as the Xeer. All societies have basic rules in common such as murder, theft, fraud. Everything on top of that would vary from land to land. My point is, the system is more flexible then one thinks, and is not as black and white as Rothbard had it in the Ethics of Liberty.
“most people are not libertarians or ancaps. Most libertarians and ancaps recognize that law is not a remedy for every ill.”
Are you saying your ancap or a libertarian? Because I don’t know what you are.
"how exactly is this a criticism? What lifeboat situations require an aggressive solution? "
Its a criticism because under the NAP the man hanging on the ledge must refrain from breaking and entering to remove himself from danger if he is to follow the NAP absolutely. Most lifeboat situations that people come up with require the solution to be aggressive. Also. here is another example of aggression that might be justified. Society 1 thinks X is a criminal. Y captures X, and improsens X for his trial. If X is proven guilty, Y recieves compensation for holding him and capturing him e.g. bounty plus prison costs. If he is proven innocent, Y must compensate X for the improsenment.
My point? Aggression would be tolerated in certain circumstances in a free society and serve a useful function. This is where the NAP and the real world differ.
well if you wake up in a trap and have to destroy part of the trap to escape, you certainly didnt violate the nap. The guy who put you in a trap is responsible for restituting damaged property. But that doesnt give you license to aggress.
Have you read the ethics of liberty or any criticisms of the NAP? Your breaking the rules of the scenario. Its not a trap, we dont know how he got there, the scenario is man hanging from a window. If he goes through the window, through the apartment and out the door he has violates the NAP. If he stays he dies. What does he do? I didn’t say he has license to aggress. He does however have a good reason, and would be a fool not to. My point is, its not a big catroshpe nor does render the NAP useless as a moral guide nor as a tool for building rules because the person aggressed would be compensated.
I feel like were starting to go in circles, agreed?
If you think aggresson is “ok sometimes” then you do not adhere to the nap.
I think one would be a fool not to recnogize that sometimes it is useful to break the NAP, yes, to not adhere to it. Pushing the man out of the way of a car etc. Its simply not practical to live ones life full 100% adhering to the NAP. The point that I have maintained throughout this discussion, which you fail to comprehend is that no society would fully adhere to the NAP, and in some situations, even if one did not adhere to it, ones sentence/punishement/damages owed might be lessened or nullified given context.
he paid with his death, and the state is being reconstructed by the people right now. I want you to explain how he is not a libertarian by your definition, where aggression is permitted as long as an attempt at restitution is made at a future date.
Again you fail to understand what I wrote earlier. That is not my definition. If you go back and re-read it, you would understand that I did not say any future date. I said it would depend upon the rules of ones society, and that you would have to face the charges within the time and procedures laid down. 42 years of continued aggression is well beyond any legal system. Hence, why I said he would be considered an outlaw, i.e. people could rightfully agress against him. Which finally happened. Furthermore, its not so much that this does or doesn’t make one a libertarian, it is more to do with the fact that such a society could operate, without breaking down.
Obviously his life was on the line since he is dead now as a result of his aggressive actions. So how is that different from your relatives demanding my death? Gaddafi appears to be a libertarian by your definition until you define libertarian in a way that excludes him.
His life was not on the line with regards to lockabee. Thats what I was referring to. Go back to what I said earlier. He would be considered by any system an outlaw.
Just has to be voluntarily agreed upon. e.g. contract based law such as the Xeer. All societies have basic rules in common such as murder, theft, fraud. Everything on top of that would vary from land to land.>>>>
may I ask why law has to be voluntarily adopted?
Are you saying your ancap or a libertarian? Because I don’t know what you are. >>>>
if you dont know what my beliefs are then why did you assume I was talking about law?
Its a criticism because under the NAP the man hanging on the ledge must refrain from breaking and entering to remove himself from danger if he is to follow the NAP absolutely.>>>>
first of all, I dont see why your scenario gives a window the same rights as a human. Secondly, why does solving the scenario require violating the nap? Couldnt he simply refrain from violating someone’s rights?
Here is something for you: a guy wakes up in a room chained and padlocked to a bomb. Next to him is a stranger, chained and sedated. A tape-recorded voice begins to play: “the only way to escape this trap is to cut open this stranger’s chest and remove the key to the padlock. Next to you is a surgeon’s typical accoutrements. You have 5 minutes.” so as soon as he makes the first incision, the door busts open and another stranger shoots him. It was all a cia test of how strongly he held to the nap and he failed.
Now tell me if and how that scenario is more or less nonsensical than “you wake up hanging from a ledge and the only way to survive is to somehow go against your morals! What do you do?”
If you have a real world example that doesnt involve turning on your lifeboat companions like a rabid dog I should wish to hear it. I only ask that it bear some resemblance to some event or occurrence that has happened at some point in time to someone.
Most lifeboat situations that people come up with require the solution to be aggressive.>>>>
that is an example of how the scenarios have little basis in reality.
Also. here is another example of aggression that might be justified. Society 1 thinks X is a criminal. Y captures X, and improsens X for his trial. If X is proven guilty, Y recieves compensation for holding him and capturing him e.g. bounty plus prison costs. If he is proven innocent, Y must compensate X for the improsenment.>>>>
that is very easy to solve. If x was innocent, then y wronged him. Y should not apprehend people just because society 1 thinks they are criminals, x is responsible for his own actions.
My point? Aggression would be tolerated in certain circumstances in a free society and serve a useful function. This is where the NAP and the real world differ. >>>>
your point is blunt in the extreme. You havent said anything about the nap except that some people do not subscribe to it, which we already knew. You also havent shown how a society where people get kidnapped in their sleep and hung off ledges and random citizens are detained for no apparent reason cold be a free society. In essence, you have assembled a muddled and confused group of strawmen who found reasons to disavow the non-aggression principle.
Have you read the ethics of liberty or any criticisms of the NAP?>>>>
no and yes
Your breaking the rules of the scenario. Its not a trap, we dont know how he got there, the scenario is man hanging from a window.>>>>
ok well I have a scenario where somehow as soon as a man considers violating the nap himself and his entire extended family simultaneously burst into flames. Based on this scenario can you now tell me that it is a good thing to contemplate violating the nap as we are doing in this thread? Discussion over, unless you want your and everyone else’s family to die.
These gedankenexperiments are only useful as far as they correspond to reality. Truth be told, I would rather “break the rules” of your scenario than violate the nap. So I teleport myself to a universe where everyone is ancap.
He does however have a good reason, and would be a fool not to.>>>>
More or less anyone who aggresses thinks they have good reasons. That doesnt mean they are right. Writing blanket escape clauses into the nap (I will just pay the damages later, fuck this guy) makes the nap meaningless and now your moral guide is “whatever I want.”
My point is, its not a big catroshpe nor does render the NAP useless as a moral guide nor as a tool for building rules because the person aggressed would be compensated. >>>>
assuming he didnt use his escape clause from the nap to slaughter anyone who attempted to force him to repair the damage in some form. You need to express a clear limit on your escape clause. “most societies wouldnt tolerate that” doesnt cut it.
I feel like were starting to go in circles, agreed?>>>>
I was headed here. It was circular to you because you had to repeat yourself a few times (each time in greater detail) because I wasnt willing to assume much.
I think one would be a fool not to recnogize that sometimes it is useful to break the NAP, yes, to not adhere to it.>>>>
I recognize the perceived utility of aggression. That doesnt mean I agree, nor does it mean the actual utility is equal to the perceived utility. If you base your criticism of the nap on mental experiments like “imagine someone has to aggress or they get tortured to death for hours. Now what?” well, I consider that foolish.
Pushing the man out of the way of a car etc.>>>>
thats not aggression anymore than performing brain surgery on a man who has been shot in the head (by surprise and he was instantly unconcious and no one has a medical power of attorney document) is torture.
Its simply not practical to live ones life full 100% adhering to the NAP.>>>>
that is an article of faith if I have ever seen one. What evidence do you have that this is true?
The point that I have maintained throughout this discussion, which you fail to comprehend is that no society would fully adhere to the NAP, and in some situations, even if one did not adhere to it, ones sentence/punishement/damages owed might be lessened or nullified given context. >>>>
society is composed of individuals so you dont tell me any news when you suggest that in any group of people, there will be some aggressors. It also is not a surprise that you describe societies that condone aggression. I may as well read a newspaper.
Again you fail to understand what I wrote earlier. That is not my definition. If you go back and re-read it, you would understand that I did not say any future date. I said it would depend upon the rules of ones society, and that you would have to face the charges within the time and procedures laid down. 42 years of continued aggression is well beyond any legal system.>>>>
I would suggest that it appears to have been within the libyan legal system. Are you claiming that the dictator of libya was an outlaw according to libyan standards for 42 years? How do you define society, then?
Hence, why I said he would be considered an outlaw, i.e. people could rightfully agress against him.>>>>
for 42 years aggression against gaddafi and his regime was not tolerated by libyan society.
Furthermore, its not so much that this does or doesn’t make one a libertarian, it is more to do with the fact that such a society could operate, without breaking down.>>>>
How would you differentiate a society that is “breaking down” from one that is not?
His life was not on the line with regards to lockabee. Thats what I was referring to. Go back to what I said earlier. He would be considered by any system an outlaw.>>>>
rather than bicker over whether the life of a dead dictator was on the line when he answered to the international community for his acts of terrorism, I will ask you this: was he considered an outlaw by the libyan system for 42 years prior to 2011?
may I ask why law has to be voluntarily adopted?
Doesn’t have to be. But in any stable society a valid contract is typically one that has been voluntarily agreed to.
if you dont know what my beliefs are then why did you assume I was talking about law?
Well since I don’t know you, I have to go off of an unknown, and the way I interpreted your writing is that you were not libertarian/ancap and therefore took the moral=law position.
first of all, I dont see why your scenario gives a window the same rights as a human. Secondly, why does solving the scenario require violating the nap? Couldnt he simply refrain from violating someone’s rights?
Malachi >< Excuse me for saying this, but honestly, you are quite daft. The window is the property of another person. I didn’t come up with this scenario this is a lifeboat situation used to criticize the NAP. The point is that in the bounds of the scenario the man must violate the NAP in order to save his own life. The scenario is used to demonstrate that one cannot always follow the NAP. If he simply refrained from violating someone elses rights he would die. That is the terms of the scenario. ^^
Now tell me if and how that scenario is more or less nonsensical than “you wake up hanging from a ledge and the only way to survive is to somehow go against your morals! What do you do?”
If you have a real world example that doesnt involve turning on your lifeboat companions like a rabid dog I should wish to hear it. I only ask that it bear some resemblance to some event or occurrence that has happened at some point in time to someone.
For what purpose? What is the point of this entire conversation? The only reason that I got involve in this thread was to point out that not all people subscribe to natural law ethics, and not all people would consider what someone was proposing earlier to be “wrong”.
Then I posited that even if one did subscribe to the NAP this does not mean that the world would be free of aggression, nor that in all circumstances would people always follow it. Sometimes it might be permissible, sometimes it might be forgiven, etc.
that is an example of how the scenarios have little basis in reality.
Not true the bounty hunter, repo man etc scenario are both totally realistic.
assuming he didnt use his escape clause from the nap to slaughter anyone who attempted to force him to repair the damage in some form. You need to express a clear limit on your escape clause. “most societies wouldnt tolerate that” doesnt cut it.
No I don’t! 
It would depend upon the legal sysem of each particular area/people. This where I differ with Rothbard. I don’t think there would be one legal system in a stateless society. I didn’t say there was an escape clause either.
Can we start again? I think you don’t understand what I have been getting at, at all.
People often criticize the NAP because it doesn’t allow for situations where aggression might be the preferred choice of action. E.g. a situation where the common man would recognize the outcome as good. Essentially a utiitatarian stance. Killing a small number x to save a large number y. Eating your companion when lost at sea. Etc.
This is a common criticism of the NAP. Even if you don’t like this example a common criticism is one where we intuitively grasp a better outcome, even though some “wrong” was done. Agreed?
So in reply to this criticism, what I say is that first off, the reality is that people can and will break the NAP. Lets say a free society exists, based off the NAP. There may be a situation where a person or group thinks it preferable to kill a small number x to save a large number y. The utilitarian who believes this to be better is not magically prevented from this course of action.
He could still do this.
Are you with me so far?
However, this would not mean that simply because he saved greater number of lives y by killing smaller number of lives x, that what he did would necessarily be considered legal. He would still have to face the charge of killing those people. That is, he woudl still be held accountable for violating the NAP.
Now here comes the guess work. Now, if in this society it is merely based on restitution, the person who violated the NAP would of course be compelled to compensate. But peraps society thought he did the right things, and so through donations helped him pay back the damages.
What is the point of this entire excercize? That in a free stateless society even based off the NAP there may be a stituation where it is preferrable to aggress, and furthermore, that this is more possible then the utilitarian believs. That all I was trying to bloody get at. But instead, you took it to the extreme coming up with your own life boat sitaution, where a gadafi emerages, in control of the state and goes around murdering people. Highly improbable in a stateless society, and would not recieve the same voluntary support/donations.
Doesn’t have to be. But in any stable society a valid contract is typically one that has been voluntarily agreed to.>>>>
are you defining “stable” as referring to the presence of voluntary law? Because that would be highly nonstandard. And lots of relatively stable (conventional definition) societies have laws that are not agreed to by all members of society.
The window is the property of another person. I didn’t come up with this scenario this is a lifeboat situation used to criticize the NAP. The point is that in the bounds of the scenario the man must violate the NAP in order to save his own life. The scenario is used to demonstrate that one cannot always follow the NAP. If he simply refrained from violating someone elses rights he would die. That is the terms of the scenario. ^^>>>>
of what relation is this scenario to reality
For what purpose? What is the point of this entire conversation? The only reason that I got involve in this thread was to point out that not all people subscribe to natural law ethics, and not all people would consider what someone was proposing earlier to be “wrong”. >>>>
feel free to eject any time you want. I saw an opportunity to pick apart someone who appeared to be an amoralist. Then you made absurd objections to non-aggression and now I cannot leave until tje issue is resolved to some extent. I wouldnt want someone rejecting the nap based on some ridiculous fantasy that has no relation to reality.
Then I posited that even if one did subscribe to the NAP this does not mean that the world would be free of aggression, nor that in all circumstances would people always follow it. Sometimes it might be permissible, sometimes it might be forgiven, etc.>>>>
well it should be relatively fundamental that my adherence to the nap doesnt stop someone else from aggressing. And mention of the fact that third parties sometimes approve of aggressive behavior, or second and third parties sometimes forgive does not show anything we do not already know.
that is an example of how the scenarios have little basis in reality.>>>>
I agree that your chosen scenarios have little basis in reality which is why I reject them.
Not true the bounty hunter, repo man etc scenario are both totally realistic. >>>>
explain, please.
No I don’t!
so some people would live in a stable society that does not embrace nonaggression. Like they do today? Is that your point, that the way people choose to live today is also acceptable tomorrow, if people choose to live that way tomorrow?
People often criticize the NAP because it doesn’t allow for situations where aggression might be the preferred choice of action. E.g. a situation where the common man would recognize the outcome as good. Essentially a utiitatarian stance. Killing a small number x to save a large number y. Eating your companion when lost at sea. Etc.>>>>
that sounds like they are trying to justify aggression. It does no good to prohibit an individual from act J if you turn around and say “but you can perform act J if you think it is a really good idea.” if act J is a good idea then it shouldnt be prohibited. And if you disagree with the non-aggression principle you should provide some examples that resemble things that actually happen to people.
This is a common criticism of the NAP. Even if you don’t like this example a common criticism is one where we intuitively grasp a better outcome, even though some “wrong” was done. Agreed?>>>>
What evidence do we have to suggest that intuition is a better guide than the nap?
Now here comes the guess work. Now, if in this society it is merely based on restitution, the person who violated the NAP would of course be compelled to compensate. But peraps society thought he did the right things>>>>
at that point (if not before) society has abandoned the non-aggression principle. When they lent sanction to aggressive violence, they abandoned the nap.
What is the point of this entire excercize? That in a free stateless society even based off the NAP there may be a stituation where it is preferrable to aggress, and furthermore, that this is more possible then the utilitarian believs. That all I was trying to bloody get at.>>>>
well then lets see some examples, as none thus far have been satisfactory, neither have they been any closer to reality than my scenario where “somehow as soon as a man considers violating the nap himself and his entire extended family simultaneously burst into flames.” your scenario has to be somewhat realistic or we can just use mine.
But instead, you took it to the extreme coming up with your own life boat sitaution, where a gadafi emerages, in control of the state and goes around murdering people. Highly improbable in a stateless society, and would not recieve the same voluntary support/donations.>>>>
well now you are making predictions about what people believe and support. Who says the people cannot support gaddafi’s aggression?
Since you are unwilling to describe an escape clause I will continue to believe that aggression is incompatible with nap. And I forgive you for calling me daft, because I like you for some odd reason. You are a character.
Why can’t I delete this?
are you defining “stable” as referring to the presence of voluntary law? Because that would be highly nonstandard. And lots of relatively stable (conventional definition) societies have laws that are not agreed to by all members of society.
Stable is any stable society. Whether or not the law was agreed to by all members of society, or voluntary is immaterial. The standard definition of a valid contract is voluntary. The historical definition of a contract is that it is voluntary. Please prove otherwise.
of what relation is this scenario to reality
It is a highly improbable scenario. It is simply used by those who disagree with the NAP as a criticism.
feel free to eject any time you want. I saw an opportunity to pick apart someone who appeared to be an amoralist. Then you made absurd objections to non-aggression and now I cannot leave until tje issue is resolved to some extent. I wouldnt want someone rejecting the nap based on some ridiculous fantasy that has no relation to reality.
The lifeboat scenarios are not my scernarios. My response is to someone arguing against the NAP. All I have done is attempt to reconcile those who criticize it with those that believe in it. Thats what you don’t understnd.
well it should be relatively fundamental that my adherence to the nap doesnt stop someone else from aggressing. And mention of the fact that third parties sometimes approve of aggressive behavior, or second and third parties sometimes forgive does not show anything we do not already know.
So you believe in the NAP? Could you please elaborate on that. I need to know exactly how you believe in the NAP and how it applies.
Again, I’m not arguing against the NAP here. >< I’m merely showing how even in a world where the NAP exists, and law is based off the NAP it does not mean that people would cease agressing, or that in certain circumstances it may be commen. You might be aware of this, but those who criticize the NAP would say in the lifeboat scenariio “Ha! See you broke the NAP. Therefore it fails as a moral principle”. My response is, even if we break it, society doesn’t break down.
I agree that your chosen scenarios have little basis in reality which is why I reject them.
I have not made an argument against the NAP, but actually have been arguing against these criticisms.
Not true the bounty hunter, repo man etc scenario are both totally realistic. >>>>
explain, please.
In the scenario of a bounty hunter or a repo man they use aggression to achieve their ends. If they act legitmately e.g. the bounty captures the right criminal, the repo man seizes the right piece of property, the NAP would say such action is justfied. Otherwise they would be compensating.
However, we have other scenarios where the NAP would say no, that contradicts the NAP and therefore would be prohibited by law. But what I’m asserting is that actually a contract between two individuals may allow it, or furthermore, that depending upon context, people can still take the utilitarian approach depending upon how the system works and the values of society.
If you believe in the NAP then you should be aware that utiliatarians critcize it for not supposedly not allowing one to take the utilitarian action, or not legitimizing it. I am arguing that.
If you beleive in the NAP you should realize that these arguments are for it. Not against it.
“so some people would live in a stable society that does not embrace nonaggression. Like they do today? Is that your point, that the way people choose to live today is also acceptable tomorrow, if people choose to live that way tomorrow”
No, my point is that not all law would be based upon Rothbards top down construction where everything is deduced via the NAP. You could have a perfectly pacifist society, where all law is contract law.
that sounds like they are trying to justify aggression. It does no good to prohibit an individual from act J if you turn around and say “but you can perform act J if you think it is a really good idea.” if act J is a good idea then it shouldnt be prohibited. And if you disagree with the non-aggression principle you should provide some examples that resemble things that actually happen to people.
Indeed they are. And they can justify it. Does that mean that they should be removed from their actions? No. Exempt from the consequences? No. That they cannot be charged and held accountable? No. But I think the reality is that if you can justify it, this will effect the outcome of the trial. Do you see? The NAP based law is still there. It still happens. But the outcome is modified by intent, context etc. ergo in some situatons aggression might be tolerated, or the penalty may not be as dire. It all depends on the victims belief, context, societal values etc.
What evidence do we have to suggest that intuition is a better guide than the nap?
What evidence do we have to suggest that the NAP is a better guide the [moral] intuiton? This is a stupid question and fails to understand the relevance of my point. Are you honestly telling me, there is not one situation where you would violate the NAP? Because thats all that I was inferring. Does this mean that because you believe your achieving good or whatever that your exempt from the penalty? No. Never said that. Does that make your action right. or wrong? IRRELEVANT. Its simply a matter of would you ever violate the NAP?
at that point (if not before) society has abandoned the non-aggression principle. When they lent sanction to aggressive violence, they abandoned the nap.
I think you don’t understand the NAP, because you haven’t read the Ethics of Liberty. The NAP isn not just some moral guide its what libertarian law is built off of. Do you see how we could have libertarian law but a society where in certain situtions the NAP might be violated and the person would recieve less then the full punishment because the victims relations did not want the full punishment imposed? Like lets say a boy has been stealing food from you for a year. You find out however he has some bad circumstances, and your a forgiving type. Instead you give him a job, and wipe his debt he owed you for the stolen food. You see? 
well now you are making predictions about what people believe and support. Who says the people cannot support gaddafi’s aggression?
Malachi, surely we can both agree, that in a stateless society, that is stable and advanced, the chances of a Gadafi-esque character emerging is low? I’m not saying they can’t and certain tribes (his tribe usually) did.
Since you are unwilling to describe an escape clause I will continue to believe that aggression is incompatible with nap. And I forgive you for calling me daft, because I like you for some odd reason. You are a character.
Ok I take it back. Hugs. Aggression is incompatible with the NAP as a moral guideline. In terms of the reality of law however, even if it is based off the NAP, society would evolve certain tolerances for aggression in certain situations. e.g. repo man, bounty hunter. ONce again, this does not mean their aggression is excused. If they seize the wrong propety, or person, they must compensate/be punished to fall in line with the NAP based law.
I realize now that the reason I thought you associated morality with law is because those who subscribe to the NAP do equate morality with LAW if the NAP is their moral code. E.g. Rothbard Ethics of Liberty.
On my ethics, I think the NAP is good a rough moral guideline. However, I don’t think we need to have the NAP to have a society, just self interest. The fact that you and me can do better if we respect each others property rights etc. IF thats amoralist. Fine.
It is a highly improbable scenario. It is simply used by those who disagree with the NAP as a criticism.>>>>
I would say that it is more than improbable, it is impossible. I also do not consider destruction of property to be aggression in this case because there are no other people in this universe. Therefore if the window doesnt belong to the sole resident before he breaks it, after he breaks it he has claimed/homesteaded it and therefore no aggression has occurred.
I could just as easily argue that food is ot necessary for life based on a scenario where everyone in the universe experiences inedia. This is also highly improbable, and says nothing about the proper role of food in our real universe where inedia is quite rare.
The lifeboat scenarios are not my scernarios. My response is to someone arguing against the NAP. All I have done is attempt to reconcile those who criticize it with those that believe in it. Thats what you don’t understnd. >>>>
thats like living in a house with locked doors and windows and your family inside and a bunch of hooligans outside and then opening the door because they were ringing your doorbell. Valid criticisms of the non-aggression principle are like unicorns. You hear aout them from time to time, but never actually find one that fits the definition.
So you believe in the NAP? Could you please elaborate on that. I need to know exactly how you believe in the NAP and how it applies.>>>>
I believe that aggressive violence is wrong and unprofitable in the long run, and that the only appropriate role for violence is to prevent the initiation of violence. Aggressive violence refers to the unprovoked initiation of force. The only provocations that are valid are demonstrations of hostile intent (threats, either verbal or implied), hostile acts, or any forthcoming imminent or unavoidable violence. In order to preempt an attack, that first aggressive attack must be imminent.
Of course, errors in judgment are not aggression, nor is “normal” negligence. If you are sitting in your car at a red light and I run into you, barring any misconduct (willfully reckless driving) I have been negligent, not aggressive. I owe damages but I did not violate nap.
If I wake up hanging from a ledge outside your bedroom window, and so I escape by breaking your window, I have not committed aggression against you. Just like if somebody kidnaps me and steals your lunch, then waits until I am really hungry and gives me your lunch. I ate your lunch but I didnt steal from you.
You might be aware of this, but those who criticize the NAP would say in the lifeboat scenariio “Ha! See you broke the NAP. Therefore it fails as a moral principle”>>>>
that makes no sense. Moral principles are failures because people dont follow them? Were you arguing with a bunch of naked hedonists?
My response is, even if we break it, society doesn’t break down.>>>>
adherence to the nap should not suggest that society will fail or “break down” if someone violates the nap. I was not aware that people were making this claim.
In the scenario of a bounty hunter or a repo man they use aggression to achieve their ends.>>>>
not by the narrow definition of “aggression” that we apply to the nap. A bounty hunter should apprehend people who are already guilty of aggression, and so his use of violence is not the initiation of violence. A repo man reclaims collateral that already belongs to the bank (or whoever). Ideally his job should not involve violence whatsoever, and it is not theft because the car doesnt belong to the guy who has posession of it, it belongs to the owner.
However, we have other scenarios where the NAP would say no, that contradicts the NAP and therefore would be prohibited by law. But what I’m asserting is that actually a contract between two individuals may allow it,>>>>
prior consent removes the aspect of aggression.
depending upon context, people can still take the utilitarian approach depending upon how the system works and the values of society.>>>>
if their utilitarian solution involves initiation of unprovoked violence, it violates the nap. A system that condones this has disavowed the nap in favor of hedonistic utilitarian principles.
If you believe in the NAP then you should be aware that utiliatarians critcize it for not supposedly not allowing one to take the utilitarian action, or not legitimizing it. I am arguing that.>>>>
I find those criticisms to be lacking substance. Contrariwise, utilitarians reject property rights and are unable to calculate utility for anyone besides themselves individually. This is why they rely on half-baked scenarios that do not resemble real life in order to levy criticism upon the non-aggression principle.
If you beleive in the NAP you should realize that these arguments are for it. Not against it.>>>>
I tend to believe that legitimizing aggression undermines the non-aggression principle. The reason it is a principle is that we cannot be expected to know the most moral, most rational, most utilitarian solution to a given scenario our entire lives. But we can know that hurting innocent people is not going to improve things. So we have the nap as a guide to keep us from one day deciding that “the benefit to me outweighs the cost to these people” and then wasting them and taking their stuff. Principles dont mean anything when you abandon them as soon as you see a benefit to contrary actions.
No, my point is that not all law would be based upon Rothbards top down construction where everything is deduced via the NAP. You could have a perfectly pacifist society, where all law is contract law.>>>>
ok we agree that people can live all sorts of different ways and the nap doesnt have to be social doctrine in order for society to be stable.
The NAP based law is still there. It still happens. But the outcome is modified by intent, context etc. ergo in some situatons aggression might be tolerated, or the penalty may not be as dire. It all depends on the victims belief, context, societal values etc.>>>>
ok it is the task of law to deal with this. The perpetrator simply did not adhere to the nap, and this is why we have a justice system. No matter if he adheres to the nap on 364 days a year, in this case, the perp was not a social libertarian.
What evidence do we have to suggest that the NAP is a better guide the [moral] intuiton?>>>>
thousands of years of human history repeating the cycle of violence. The existence of people whose moral intuition leads them to vandalize, rob, rape, and murder.
This is a stupid question and fails to understand the relevance of my point. Are you honestly telling me, there is not one situation where you would violate the NAP?>>>>
I am human and the universe is infinite. And, at times, the temptation to violate the principle of non-aggression can be strong. However I cannot think of any situation where the solution would require aggression. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Because thats all that I was inferring. Does this mean that because you believe your achieving good or whatever that your exempt from the penalty? No. Never said that. Does that make your action right. or wrong? IRRELEVANT. Its simply a matter of would you ever violate the NAP?>>>>
well to me, right and wrong are always relevant. And I say that I would like to be the kind of person who adheres to the nap ABSOLUTELY.
I think you don’t understand the NAP, because you haven’t read the Ethics of Liberty.>>>>
well I am sorry to have given you that impression. I think you are neglecting to differentiate aggressive violence from other types of violence. I also believe that you have not integrated the concepts of mens rea and negligence into your concept of the nap. Aggression is willful initiation of violence for some purpose other than prevention of imminent violence.
The NAP isn not just some moral guide its what libertarian law is built off of. Do you see how we could have libertarian law but a society where in certain situtions the NAP might be violated and the person would recieve less then the full punishment because the victims relations did not want the full punishment imposed?>>>>
yes but that doesnt “disprove” the nap, it simply illustrates that legal systems can be prepared to handle nuanced situations.
Malachi, surely we can both agree, that in a stateless society, that is stable and advanced, the chances of a Gadafi-esque character emerging is low? I’m not saying they can’t and certain tribes (his tribe usually) did.>>>>
I just want to know where you draw the line. If society can be stable and ignore the nap in favor of a utilitarian measure of appropriate aggression, then how does gaddafi’s libya not apply? This is my question to the utilitarians. Is libya an utilitarian state? It would appear so.
Ok I take it back. Hugs. Aggression is incompatible with the NAP as a moral guideline. In terms of the reality of law however, even if it is based off the NAP, society would evolve certain tolerances for aggression in certain situations.>>>>
I agree, except I wouldnt say “tolerance” simply because each occurrence of aggression is not punished by the maximum penalty. All violations of the nap are not equally abhorrent. I think we agree on this.
e.g. repo man, bounty hunter. ONce again, this does not mean their aggression is excused. If they seize the wrong propety, or person, they must compensate/be punished to fall in line with the NAP based law.>>>>
But this is the same as a society that is ignorant of nap
On my ethics, I think the NAP is good a rough moral guideline. However, I don’t think we need to have the NAP to have a society, just self interest. The fact that you and me can do better if we respect each others property rights etc. IF thats amoralist. Fine.>>>>
Self-interest is the key, but education is required for people to learn that adherence to nap is in their highest self-interest.
No, if people individual liberties are violated it cannot be justified. People were forced to fight. Peoples property was expropriated from them to fund the war.
This may be so, but can you find no other values outside of the economic paradigm? Are your values wholly defined by it? I would have thought that only a dedication to the truth would have arrived one to an austrian conclusion.
I was thinking about this thread at work today and came up with some scenarios.
Guy wakes up in a trap and:
Has to violate an innocent third party’s property to escape. Guy breaks the window, the person guilty of trapping him is also on the hook for a window. NAP win.
Is told he has to rip out an innocent third party’s eyeball in order to escape. Guy declines to perform impromptu manual surgery. Guy declines to become a willing agent of evil. Guy declines to trust the word of an evil person who trapped him. Guy perishes, and innocent third party is unhurt. NAP win.
Is told that he somehow must rip out an innocent third party’s heart or a bomb will detonate, killing thousands of people. Guy declines to trust the word of a person who abducted him and placed a bomb where it could hurt thousands of people. Guy is not the person who placed the bomb. Guy has no way of knowing whether his act of aggression will, in fact, save lives. Guy declines to perform manual cardiactomy. Bomb detonates, and the abductor is responsible for bombing thousands of people, which is what he would have done anyway. No surgery is performed. NAP win.
Guy and Gal are on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. Their survival equipment includes a solar-powered desalinator and a marine gps device, but their fishing equipment was lost in the shipwreck. Guy and Gal know for an absolute certainty that both of them will starve to death before landfall, but if one eats the other, then the eater will survive long enough to make landfall. If:
Guy chooses to sacrifice his flesh so that Gal can survive. Guy gives Gal permission to kill him and therefore no aggression takes place. Gal survives. NAP win.
Neither Guy nor Gal wish to sacrifice themselves to save the other, but they both realize that someone must die or they both will surely die. They agree to settle the question with a contest of skill or luck, such as a fight to the death. Since they agree, no aggression occurs. Guy survives. NAP win.
Neither Guy nor Gal wish to sacrifice themselves to save the other, and the idea of a contest is unacceptable to them both. Guy suprises Gal with murder. Guy violates NAP and survives. Guy is a utilitarian and now you know that you cannot trust utilitarians in lifeboat situations. NAP win (for trustworthiness).
Guy, a social libertarian, through his own willful and self-informed decision making, ends up in a situation where in order to survive he must kill an innocent third party. Guy kills innocent third party and renounces social libertarianism. GUY STILL ENDS LIFE AS A CORPSE. Violation of the non-aggression principle doesnt buy you eternal life. It is a question of values. Do you value non-aggression or do you value something else?