In your mind, perhaps. But you didnt invent libertarian ethics so this assertion has no value for the purposes of any discussion.
Minarchist,
I’m not sure that this conversation is going to go anywhere else. You are defining aggression separately from how it is defined in terms of the NAP. It is not an appeal to authority to quote Rothbard or Block. If someone says they support the NAP, I assume they mean the NAP as defined by Rothbard or Block. After all, that’s what I am referring to. But if you want to define the NAP differently, I don’t see why you would want to call it the NAP unless you wish to hijack the phrase. It’s one thing if a lot of people were doing it, but in this case, it is really only you.
If a slave owner beats his slave, he has initiated violence against the person that is the slave. If you want to define aggression as something else, like aggression is violating property rights, then so be it. But this is neither one of the dictionary definitions of aggression, nor is it the definition of aggression found in the NAP as stated by Rothbard or Block.
Self-defense is not aggression because it is not the initiation of violence. Beating your slave is not self-defense. In order to beat your slave, unless he has attacked you (which is fine by me, as you are holding him as a slave), then you must “begin, start, introduce” “force” against your slave. This is aggression as defined by the NAP.
Regarding horses, well, last time I checked, the NAP was only about men aggressing against men, not men aggressing against horses. Just so you know, there are actually people out there who think it is wrong to “aggress” against horses. But when we talk about libertarianism and the NAP, we are talking about men.
Well, this is actually false. Now, I suppose you could have some libertarians who view it this way, but most libertarians have been influenced by Rothbard at one point or another, even if they do not agree with him 100% (I know I don’t, though I am astounded at how much I do agree with him whenever I reread him). So, let’s look at what Rothbard said:
I have tried to demonstrate this previously, how the NAP and libertarian ethics comes from the golden rule, which, when you look at the chart on the wikipedia page on the NAP, you can see that others have reached this conclusion too (like, say, Rothbard). I have shown how property and estoppel and homesteading and proportion come from the NAP. Whether or not you accept this is up to you. After all, if you don’t accept the golden rule as your starting point, then you might have other reasons for supporting the NAP. But the problem is that you are supporting some version of the NAP that is a virtual unknown. Your version essentially boils down to, “Thou shalt not violate property.”
Okay, that’s fine if that’s what you want to use as the NAP, just as it’s fine that you want to define “minarchist” as something other than someone who supports a really small state. And it’s fine if you want to define aggression as something other than the initiation of force or the threat thereof. But these are all nonstandard uses, both in the general population and the libertarian population. And, for example, unlike the gay population, you don’t have numbers on your side. They hijacked the word gay and changed it’s meaning. The nonstandard use became the standard use. But you are essentially on your own on these particular definitions.
For your sake, and for clarity’s sake, I highly suggest finding different terms and phrases for some of your beliefs. Otherwise, you will forevermore have to define your nonstandard terms. Even if I have to define aggression to someone, I won’t have to always do it, as the libertarian definition of aggression is actually one of the few dictionary definitions for the word. I won’t always have to do it.
And it’s also why Rothbard initially wanted to call himself “anti-state” instead of “anarchist”. Because of people’s perceptions and understanding of the definition of the words. But he had numbers on his side. He was able to use the word anachist eventually because enough libertarians wanted to use the etymological meaning of the word.
But you don’t have numbers on your side. Maybe you will someday, but until then, I highly recommend coining new terms or phrases. It’s just too confusing.
So, I think I’m going to bow out now. There really isn’t much else for me to say. I suggest you read more Rothbard instead of Block. Or read some Kinsella. Or maybe brush up on what the ancient rabbis (or the modern orthodox rabbis) said. While religion is flawed, and I’m sure there have been some very great Christian priests or ministers, I can say that certain historical rabbis such as Hillel or Maimonides were very wise and virtuous men, and while I firmly believe all religion to be flawed, these 2 men (and certain other rabbis) more than make up for any flaws in the religion.
Why don’t you define what you mean by “initiation of force.”
Why dont you define what you mean by “property” since you apparently think it existed before people existed to own it?
Why dont you define what you mean by “property”
From my post on page 3.
What is property?
Property is any thing (in the broadest sense of the term: res) which is owned.
What does it mean to own a thing?
To own a thing is to have the exclusive right to use that thing, and in any way, and at any time, that one pleases.
And you continued:
you apparently think it existed before people existed to own it
Where did I suggest that property existed before people existed?
In your mind, perhaps. But you didnt invent libertarian ethics so this assertion has no value for the purposes of any discussion.
I’ll say again:
It makes no sense to talk about aggression prior to a concept of property.
Saying “thou shalt not aggress” without knowing what aggression is, is like saying “thou shalt not do bad things” without knowing what bad things are. A simple test. Start from the “thou shalt not aggress” and try to deduce property. It can’t be done. Whereas, starting from a definition of property, one can deduce the NAP.
did I say before? I meant logically antecedent. Your concept of property necessarily implies human rights. I’m asking you how you can conceive of ownership as a foundation without presupposing fundamental human rights.
did I say before?
Yes
you apparently think it existed before people existed to own it
And you continue:
I meant logically antecedent.
Ok.
Your concept of property necessarily implies human rights.
What are “human rights”?
Aggression is the initiation of violence. Dont initiate violence, violence may only be used to prevent imminent aggression, or halt it while its in progress.
property doesnt need to be derived from the nap, its axiomatic. Humans are born understanding that people own things. Scientists already proved this.
““What are “human rights”?””"
you tell me, you brought it up.
Aggression is the initiation of violence. Dont initiate violence, violence may only be used to prevent imminent aggression, or halt it while its in progress.
So aggression is any violence used for any purpose other than to prevent or halt aggression?
That is a circular definition. You need to define what aggression is.
property doesnt need to be derived from the nap, its axiomatic. Humans are orn understanding that people own things. Scientists already proved this.
Exactly, the concept of property is logically antecedent to the NAP.
““What are “human rights”?””"
you tell me, you brought it up.
Um, no, you brought it up, right here:
Your concept of property necessarily implies human rights. I’m asking you how you can conceive of ownership as a foundation without presupposing fundamental human rights.
I have no idea what you mean by “human rights.” Most often, talk about “human rights” is talk about something like the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. Am I to understand that this is what you’re talking about? If not, then please explain what you mean, otherwise how can I possibly answer your question?
Its not circular, theres a thing called “first,” maybe you’ve heard of it? Its aggression if you initiate it, I’m pretty sure thats been said before.
““Exactly, the concept of property is logically antecedent to the NAP.””
Pathways in the brain are logically antecendent to thought, but if you believe that those pathways lead to that idea you need to do more than say so. property is a separate axiom, thats why there are “libertarians” who reject it, just like there is a “Minarchist” who rejects NAP and substitutes it with his own principle derived from property axioms.
Yah, that was after you said this:
Ownership necessitates an owner, who apparently enjoys rights. Tell me about these rights.
Its not circular, theres a thing called “first,” maybe you’ve heard of it? Its aggression if you initiate it, I’m pretty sure thats been said before.
But first to do what? What kind of action is involved in aggression?
Violence against the body, sure.
But isn’t there another kind of action (like what we call stealing, for example) that can be aggression?
So is it aggression to drive cars?
No, it is aggression to drive someone else’s car without their permission.
O look, our explanation of aggression had to presume the concept of property!
Ownership necessitates an owner, who apparently enjoys rights. Tell me about these rights.
What do you want to know?
Pathways in the brain are logically antecendent to thought
Ok…?
but if you believe that those pathways lead to that idea you need to do more than say so
Again, huh?
property is a separate axiom
Seperate from what? From the NAP? No, it is not. The NAP makes no sense without the concept of property. Suppose there is a world where everyone knows the NAP, but no one has any concept of property. The NAP is meaningless to them. Great, don’t aggress - but what’s aggression? They don’t know, because the definition of aggression rests on a concept of property.
just like there is a “Minarchist” who rejects NAP and substitutes it with his own principle derived from property axioms
I reject the NAP? How so?
and youre done. Call this NAP-prime. Now, its axiomatic that humans have property, continued human existence requires the use of property, hence depriving someone of his just property is potentially depriving him of his life. If you steal his food and he starves to death over the winter, he died because of your thievery. But if he simply didnt store enough food, and tried to mooch off of someone else, then his death would be his own fault. So you see that the part of aggression that refers to property requires a theory of property, its not something that is simply assumed. Theories of jus property are derived from axioms. One of them is the inalienability of the self. The “owner” that is implied in any concept of property, even those that address the corpus. When social fictions like states and corporations own property, they have to invent a person. The physical corpus isnt the owner. When the us government owns something, the pentagonal building in washington isnt the owner. Its an invented person. With respect to humans, the person is inalienable. You may not aggress against people. Once we found out that depriving someone of his property could be aggression, we started calling it that. Youre begging the question, and that dog dont hunt.
Yes, it can be for reasons explained above.
thats not really aggression qua aggression unless it materially impacts them, like prevents them from driving their car. Its just misappropration of goods, theft. To even have this discussion requires a theory of property, which presupposes people and their right to remain unaggressed upon, concepts of permissions, to include temporality, so we have contracts here, meaning contract theory is involved, which you apparently want to assume to benefit you in your first premise. But we are already talking about the nature of property, you cant beg the question, its not happening. Moving on
no, just yours, because you have the oddest fixation on arguing a system of ethics that appears to be based on the premise that you can legally own human beings. I’m pretty sure youre not any sort of libertarian.
Can you enumerate them, or are they unquantifiable?
How does the concept of property lead you to (what you consider to be) NAP? You need to explain that, instead of just saying that it does. The fact that people’s brains are wired to think of {property} and {propertyholder} when things are coded into those contexts does not make your argument for you. The philosophical implications of that biological fact are that humans need a coherent, cogent, workable theory of property in order to use those biocircuits effectively. This is an epistemological starting point, not the slam dunk you thought it to be.
I think you just trolled yourself