Who, in our current society, is currently "violating" the NAP?

Economics Political Theory
1

In particular, who is doing so as a function of their job, and in particular, as a function of their state-related job?

[For the purposes of the hypo, imagine that some miracle occurs overnight and the NAP becomes the “law” of the land, and good judges/arbitrators magically spring up that will “try” claims of violations against the NAP, and everyone goes to their jobs as they normally would. Oh, also, do not assume any sort of implicit “social contract” booshit.]

So for example, any policeman who “enforces” a state-defined victimless crime would violate the NAP. That’s pretty straightforward.

Equally straightforward to me is anyone about the policeman in the “chain of command”, since they are directing others to violate the NAP and thus are a party/conspirator to the aggression.

I think there are some other similar situations: prison guards, tax collectors (who, I think I would argue, “direct” government agents to do things like garnish wages, and again, all the people that command these people.

I think you could put various state “regulators” in here, e.g. an EPA regulator that tells a business what they can and can’t do with the threat of the force of the state behind them.

what I have a harder time with is folks like teachers in public schools. They are not directly initiating aggression. However, they are being paid in stolen money (taxes). If the NAP were actually “in force”, they would know that it is stolen money. Does taking that money to teach make them accomplices to the aggression of taxation, or is the fact that they are not directing or initiating that aggression mean they are not violating the NAP?

[I suspect there is probably a libertarian debate about whether voting makes one an aggressor, but I don’t think I’d find that debate very interesting since I generally think in terms of conditional probabilities/causality and the causal strength of one vote is almost nil. Perhaps voting is an act of aggression, but if so, it is a tiny one hardly worth bothering about. IMHO. But please don’t derail on this point. I’m more interested in the questions above.]

2

I might have to concede that at this point the left-libertarian concept of hierarchies does play a role in causal analysis. I think that if you work for an established institution in a position of power which can order others to violate the NAP, you are guilty. Teachers, however, do not actively make other violate the NAP (unless it’s searching backpacks, but let’s neglect that, shall we).

If you order others to break the NAP, you are guilty. If you are receiving compensation from the state for some job you do, it’s not really breaking the NAP, but I think that you might have to give back the money you’ve taken (and I hope that an understanding public in a libertarian society would actually let the teachers keep their salaries).

Hm… However, consider criminal B who knows that criminal A has stolen money of citizen C. B asks A for some money, and he gets it. C still needs restitution…

Still, this is not a problem, as I already said that teachers should be required to give back the money unless the taxpayer lets them keep it. I highly hope individuals in a free society would let teachers keep their salaries even though they were stolen originally.

Tl;dr; Causal chain to hierarchical power makes you guilty. However, since the question is one of restitution and we agree that the property should be given back, this is not a problem when applying the same principles to policemen and teachers.

3

I don’t really have an issue with teachers since their occupation is essentially monopolized by the State. We do need educators in society and the market share is shifted towards the public education system. I guess if you want to get technical, they are violating the NAP and they could take the “moral high ground” and not get involved in the system, but there are bigger fish to fry.

4

“Teachers, however, do not actively make other violate the NAP (unless it’s searching backpacks, but let’s neglect that, shall we).”

Actually, it was pointed out to me elsewhere that teachers participate in the “kidnapping” of children via truancy laws etc. IOW, children are forced to go to school, and teachers are a part of that. This becomes more egregious when we realize they are using the forced incarceration to forcefeed children statist “education”.

That really wasn’t what I was going for, t hough. I meant something like, oh, the janitor at the pentagon: he’s being paid with stolen tax money. Y

You claim they should “give it back”, but: to whom? The state took it, and the teachers don’t know from whom. And at the same time, the teachers have been stolen from all their lives by the state. Some have told me they consider this money the teachers’ since it was stolen from them originally.

“Causal chain to hierarchical power makes you guilty.”

I agree. You don’t get away from “guilty” because you had your henchmen do your dirtywork for you. You caused it, you are responsible for it.

What about…

  1. jurors?

  2. Tax men/IRS?

  3. Legislators?

  4. Inspectors (like restaurant inspectors, or FDA scientisits)?

  5. DMV workers?

  6. NASA employees?

  7. Goverment contractors?

5

In terms of indirectly “violating” the NAP, we’re all guilty of that to some extent. Every one of us has been the beneficiary, however unwitting, of stolen wealth. Driving on government roads is an obvious example here.

6

“I don’t really have an issue with teachers since their occupation is essentially monopolized by the State. We do need educators in society and the market share is shifted towards the public education system. I guess if you want to get technical, they are violating the NAP and they could take the “moral high ground” and not get involved in the system, but there are bigger fish to fry.”

I’m not really trying to “fry” someone so much as to have a relatively comprehensive understanding of who and who isn’t, and to what extent, currently violating the NAP.

I need this for a project I’m working on, though I also think it’s an interesting question that I’ve never asked: I’ve been “for” the NAP for almost 30 years, but while I’ve debated this 6 trillion times, I’ve never actually stopped to ask exactly who is currently violating it.

7

“In terms of indirectly “violating” the NAP, we’re all guilty of that to some extent. Every one of us has been the beneficiary, however unwitting, of stolen wealth. Driving on government roads is an obvious example here.”

Going back to my hypo, would a good libertarian judge really ding someone for that, given that that road was at least partially paid with money stolen from the person who is driving on it?

I do see your point. It’s almost impossible to completely extricate one’s self from violating the NAP as long as the state is around, but you can at least see shades of grey.

But I doubt that a judge would use the criteria “has been the beneficiary of stolen wealth”, because it’s just too broad and untraceable. if someone steals money and builds a beautiful building with it, then everyone who sees the building has been a “beneficiary” of that stolen wealth. But they haven’t violated the NAP. They didn’t commit aggression in anything close to the sense that a cop or the people that tell the cop what to do have, say. You can be a passive beneficiary, e.g. you stole money and built a highway, and that has increased my property value somehow (maybe it made my neighborhood more accessible). I’m not even using the highway, but I’m “benefitting” from it. I can’t imagine a libertarian judge ever who would interpret that as my oweing someone for that.

I’m mostly looking for a sense of how much these various things represent a violation. I can see your argument and I’m not dismissing it, but at the least it’s pretty low on the overall ladder.

8

Teachers are overpaid and it is not a crime to steal from them.

Think about a professor in higher education earning 60K a year and tell me he is living off his money.

Why did you pose a question, if you’ve already made up your mind? How is money stolen from teachers when they don’t pay taxes?

9

None of us however have ever recieved title to stolen wealth.

Do you have the right to keep a road the government gave you?

10

I’m sorry if I misunderstood your point in the OP. It seemed to me like you were simply trying to figure out where to draw the line between NAP-violators and NAP-non-violators.

I think that a good libertarian judge would ding someone for his own actions. None of us can help the fact that roads and other “public goods” have already been paid for with stolen wealth. Using them in no way means we helped steal that wealth, or worse. So I think we’re in complete agreement there. The focus IMO should be on direct actions - i.e. what did you do, as an individual?

You bring up the issue of public schoolteachers, and I think that’s a good example. Most of the time, I don’t think public schoolteachers are really violating the NAP, even though they’re being paid directly by the government. I think a bigger issue is whether they actively enforce the mandatory-attendance laws by reporting students for truancy, preventing students from walking out of class, etc.

11

That depends. Many people could be said to have received title to stolen wealth if they’ve been paid by the government. You have a good point though.

If I’m reading your question right, then I don’t think I do. Do you?

12

This is silly. If the government siezes (nationalizes) your house, then 20 years later gives it to me. Is it alright for me to deny you the right to enter your house and kick me out?

If I were to forcefully deny you entrance I would be violating the NAP. If an overpaid teacher reports a thief to the police he is violating the NAP (if the thief is a net tax payer).

13

:wink: I haven’t made up my mind. I’m contributing an opinion from someone else who isn’t on this list to help the debate along.

[I don’t want to rathole on this, but how do teachers not pay taxes? Income tax is taken out of their paychecks, right?] In either case, teachers will have had much money taxed out of them before them become teachers.

But having seen a number of back and forths on this, I think that generally people who are just paid from tax money but aren’t doing something aggressive themselves are at best “low” violators of the NAP.

14

I don’t think so. But at the same time, you presumably weren’t the one who actually seized my house.

I don’t think being a net taxpayer means it’s okay to steal just anything from just anyone (up to offsetting the taxes one has “paid”).

15

"This is silly. If the government siezes (nationalizes) your house, then 20 years later gives it to me. Is it alright for me to deny you the right to enter your house and kick me out?

If I were to forcefully deny you entrance I would be violating the NAP. "

This isn’t what I wanted this thread to be about, but: I think this is harder than you think it is. What if the government siezed A’s house, and then sold it to someone else who didn’t know that it had been siezed,a nd then they sold it, etc., and eventually you buy it. Now A comes knocking on your door saying it’s his house. You paid for it, and you conducted a mutually voluntary trade with another non-aggressor.

Clearly the party at fault is the thief (and the principle is the same whether the thief is the state or not), and I think it’s clear taht the desired market outcome is for neither A nor you to be screwed.

“If an overpaid teacher reports a thief to the police he is violating the NAP (if the thief is a net tax payer).”

Really, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this line of logic. Can you expand it out? I like to consider alternatives… (heh)

16

Because their whole paycheck comes out of taxes. Their paying taxes is fiction, an accounting trick Rothbard called it.

So what? I’m engaging in an activity now, I’m calling the police on you or threatening you with a shotgun to vacate “my property”. I can not claim I’m being passive any longer.

I didn’t say from anyone, I said from teachers. I was very explicit.

There is no up to. You may liberate more money than you paid in taxes, only you have to be willing to give the difference up at first asking if you’re asked to by other net-taxpayers.

This has been tackled many times. If you buy something from a fake owner then you have bought nothing. Only purchase from the rightful owner transfers ownership.

17

It may be misplaced criticism to look for the particular individuals who are directly or indirectly violating the NAP. Sure, a cop who wrestles a kid to the ground over dope or hauls a prostitute off to jail is guilty, but as libertarians the force of argument lies behind the observation that a system of justice/law and order is functionally retarded when based on coercion. We are far more persuasive (to many) when we argue that a system of social interaction just doesn’t work when based on violence. Why? Because people are conditioned that such force is an acceptable part of the society in which we live. Sure, the strict moral argument can work, and blatent violations of the NAP are quick flashes of reality that might make people stop and think, but we need to, a la Bastiat, show the unseen consequences of relying on immoral principles to preserve “law and order.”

In this endeavor, criticizing teachers and fireman would do little good, methinks, unless you’re preaching to the choir.

18

As I argued in another topic:

Signing up to be a teacher in higher education and earn 60K per annum for very little work is not any low-level violation of the NAP. It is heroic, on par with a defense contractor swindling the state for millions of dollars for a weapon that doesn’t work, robbing Ft. Knox, or selling cocaine packages, but actually flour to the mafia. In each case you liberate wealth from control of thiefs.

The problem is hiding behind the state-granted title to hold onto it afterwards and even calling down the iron fist of the state to defend your control of money somebody else is entitled to to a higher degree than you and has come to reclaim it.

19

That’s true, and I agree that you have no standing under the NAP to do that to me. I was just pointing out that you weren’t the one who actually stole my house from me. Nevertheless, for you to bar me entry to what is rightfully mine (under the NAP, which we both actually agree with) is a separate offense, so again I agree with you there.

Sorry, Marko, I hadn’t looked at this post of yours from earlier. I didn’t realize that what you wrote to me was connected to that.

Even then, however, the situation isn’t always so cut-and-dried. In the United States, at least, public schoolteachers are paid (largely) by local government. They still “pay” income taxes to the federal government (and often the state government). In Germany (where I believe you live - let me know if I’m wrong), the situation might be different.

Good point. That sounds fair to me.

Indeed, not only have you bought nothing, you’ve also therefore been defrauded by the seller. At the very least, he owes you back the money that you used to make what you (presumably) thought was a lawful purchase.

20

I agree with you about focusing on “the system”, but I disagree with you about opposing coercion per se. First let me point out that by “coercion” I mean “the use or threat of violence”. If you’re using a different definition from that one, feel free to disregard what I say below.

I think coercion/violence per se can be useful and thus I don’t think they should be opposed. Libertarianism isn’t the same thing as pacifism. By seeming to conflate coercion/violence per se with aggressive (i.e. initiatory) coercion/violence, people like Centinel can go on claiming that libertarians are, in fact, pacifists. However, most (if not all) libertarians believe staunchly in defending what they see as their rights against those who would violate them. This includes violent defense. I, for one, see no reason whatsoever to shy away from that.

The systems we live under today are based on “groupthink”. I read an article by Glenn Greenwald recently where he quotes George Orwell on that notion. Paraphrasing Orwell, he defined “groupthink” as “judging actions not on their own, but on who commits them”. I think this is a very useful definition. If a person engages in groupthink, he’ll approve certain actions if they’re made by one group, but oppose them otherwise - or vice-versa. So in our day and age, one of the main forms of groupthink consists of government officials versus mere “civilians” or “citizens”. Many (if not most) people believe that a policeman beating down a non-policeman is okay, or at least not as bad as the converse. Furthermore, they see the converse - a non-policeman beating down a policeman - as heinous. To them, the action itself (i.e. per se) doesn’t matter as much as who’s doing it.

Really, this is just another way of describing what Clayton calls the “moral double-standard”. As individualists (hopefully methodological individualists), I think we should rail against moral double-standards or groupthink to the fullest extent possible.