Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is the NAP Necessary?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Is the NAP Necessary?  (Read 26092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Is the NAP Necessary?
« on: May 08, 2009, 02:16:26 PM »

Is the Non Agression Principle a necessary component of Libertarian thought?

I ask because untill I came here roughly a year ago, I had never heard of the NAP, yet I have considered myself to be a libertarian since early high school. As a result, I have never defined my political thought by non aggression, or tied myself down to its conditions.

So, does libertarianism need the NAP, or is that a component of one of many different political philosophies that incorporate libertarian thought?
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2009, 02:21:14 PM »

Is the Non Agression Principle a necessary component of Libertarian thought?

No, because the existence of government violates that principle, and certainly not all libertarians are anarchists. 
Logged

Andy

  • Verbose.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
  • Ask me later.
    • View Profile
    • My Blawg
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2009, 02:23:27 PM »

Meh.

I think it's quite possible to have an affection for liberty on a more than pragmatic level without subscribing to the NAP.

I don't know if that's what you meant.

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2009, 02:26:15 PM »

Meh.

I think it's quite possible to have an affection for liberty on a more than pragmatic level without subscribing to the NAP.

I don't know if that's what you meant.

Its exactly what I ment. I dont see the need to think its necessary, but for those who do, I want to know why.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2009, 02:35:38 PM »


Heres 2c.

It takes all kinds.  I personally don't subscribe to NAP/ZAP because sometimes, theres a justified reason to go on the offensive and burn a fucker.  But the Gandhi's of the world play an important role, and I wouldn't discount their importance. 
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2009, 02:53:15 PM »

http://www.nostate.com/an-anarchists-declaration/

    * I wish no power* over you.
    * I wish that you have no power over me.
    * Where I have power over you, I shall seek to renounce it.
    * Where you have power over me, I shall pray that you renounce it, and so long as it be extant, I shall condemn it.
    * Where there are those who would try to give me power over you, I shall denounce them and condemn them.
    * Where there are those who would try to give you power over me, I shall laugh at them and condemn them.
    * Where you would use force to sustain any putative power relationship over me, I shall condemn you and resist you, and call to my brethren in our struggle against you.
    * Where a tyrant, a majority, a plurality, or a minority presume to grant you power over me, or over anyone else, I shall condemn it, resist it, renounce it and denounce it.
    * Where there are those who are subjugated beneath the boot heel of power, by “democratic” means or otherwise, I shall support their resistance, their condemnation, their denunciation and their renunciation.
    * I shall make no compromise with evil.

Signed: Michael Jude Gogulski, born free at Phoenix, Arizona, 8 August 1972.

Endorsements welcome.

* Replace the word “power” here with “privilege” if that vocabulary better suits your understanding.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2009, 02:02:43 PM by NHArticleTen »
Logged

patrickj

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2009, 04:20:38 PM »

I think the main obstacle here is tying down the polluted term "libertarian".  The answer kinda depends on what you mean by libertarian.  Ive always thought of libertarians as smallest government possible, most market freedom possible.  You could say the NAP conflicts with government, but it doesn't necessarily.  Its possible to have a government that is only limited to those who consented to be governed.  In that case, nobody has been agressed upon. 

I think the NAP is central to voluntarism, but not anarchism (situationally) nor libertarianism (situationally).   

So, the answer to your question is dependent on semantics. 

Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2009, 04:34:12 PM »

You could say the NAP conflicts with government, but it doesn't necessarily.  Its possible to have a government that is only limited to those who consented to be governed.  In that case, nobody has been agressed upon. 

Yeah, but then time becomes an issue.  What if I consent to be governed today, but change my mind next week when I feel like car-jacking someone?   At some point the government has  to initiate force against people, because that's goverment's job.  That's what distinguishes governors from leaders. 
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 04:41:50 PM by Rillion »
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2009, 04:45:40 PM »

You could say the NAP conflicts with government, but it doesn't necessarily.  Its possible to have a government that is only limited to those who consented to be governed.  In that case, nobody has been agressed upon. 

Yeah, but then time becomes an issue.  What if I consent to be governed today, but change my mind next week when I feel like car-jacking someone?   At some point the government has  to initiate force against people, because that's goverment's job.  
Bad example. If the government stops you from car-jacking, the government did not intiate force. You did.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2009, 05:02:04 PM »

You could say the NAP conflicts with government, but it doesn't necessarily.  Its possible to have a government that is only limited to those who consented to be governed.  In that case, nobody has been agressed upon. 

Yeah, but then time becomes an issue.  What if I consent to be governed today, but change my mind next week when I feel like car-jacking someone?   At some point the government has  to initiate force against people, because that's goverment's job.  
Bad example. If the government stops you from car-jacking, the government did not intiate force. You did.

I initiated force on the person whose car I am attempting to steal-- not on the government.  The Non-Aggression Principle, so far as I understand, does not have an exemption for people to do whatever they want to someone so long as that person is exerting force on someone else.   If it did, then I would be perfectly justified in becoming a vigilante and going around chopping the hands off thieves and rapists. 
Logged

TimeLady Victorious

  • Aprilicious
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2009, 05:11:46 PM »

I've always thought of the NAP as necessary, even before I classified myself as "libertarian" . . .

The way I figure it is the classic statement, "Your fist ends where my face begins." Don't bother others, and you should not be bothered either.

If everyone left everyone to live their lives in peace, the world would be a lot better place.
Logged
ENGAGE RIDLEY MOTHER FUCKER

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2009, 05:13:58 PM »

The Non-Aggression Principle, so far as I understand, does not have an exemption for people to do whatever they want to someone so long as that person is exerting force on someone else.   If it did, then I would be perfectly justified in becoming a vigilante and going around chopping the hands off thieves and rapists. 
The NAP you understand is crazy.

If you see someone raping and killing a bunch of people, you are perfectly justified in taking that person out. At least that is how I understand NAP.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2009, 05:25:53 PM »

The Non-Aggression Principle, so far as I understand, does not have an exemption for people to do whatever they want to someone so long as that person is exerting force on someone else.   If it did, then I would be perfectly justified in becoming a vigilante and going around chopping the hands off thieves and rapists. 
The NAP you understand is crazy.

If you see someone raping and killing a bunch of people, you are perfectly justified in taking that person out. At least that is how I understand NAP.

So who gets to decide what amount of force I'm allowed to exert against someone who has initiated force against someone else?  And how soon do I have to do it?  Can I shoot a guy who beats his kid?  Can I punch someone in the mouth if he raped my sister five years ago? 
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2009, 05:41:23 PM »

The Non-Aggression Principle, so far as I understand, does not have an exemption for people to do whatever they want to someone so long as that person is exerting force on someone else.   If it did, then I would be perfectly justified in becoming a vigilante and going around chopping the hands off thieves and rapists. 
The NAP you understand is crazy.

If you see someone raping and killing a bunch of people, you are perfectly justified in taking that person out. At least that is how I understand NAP.

So who gets to decide what amount of force I'm allowed to exert against someone who has initiated force against someone else?  And how soon do I have to do it?  Can I shoot a guy who beats his kid?  Can I punch someone in the mouth if he raped my sister five years ago? 
1. You get to decide.

2. NAP doesn't put time limits on anything.

3. Sure. If someone else doesn't like what you did, they can shoot you.

4. Sure. If someone else doesn't like what you did, they can shoot you.

Me, I don't follow the NAP.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2009, 05:52:03 PM »

The Non-Aggression Principle, so far as I understand, does not have an exemption for people to do whatever they want to someone so long as that person is exerting force on someone else.   If it did, then I would be perfectly justified in becoming a vigilante and going around chopping the hands off thieves and rapists. 
The NAP you understand is crazy.

If you see someone raping and killing a bunch of people, you are perfectly justified in taking that person out. At least that is how I understand NAP.

So who gets to decide what amount of force I'm allowed to exert against someone who has initiated force against someone else?  And how soon do I have to do it?  Can I shoot a guy who beats his kid?  Can I punch someone in the mouth if he raped my sister five years ago? 
1. You get to decide.

2. NAP doesn't put time limits on anything.

3. Sure. If someone else doesn't like what you did, they can shoot you.

4. Sure. If someone else doesn't like what you did, they can shoot you.

Wait, so they can exert force against me, even though my force was against somebody else for exerting force against somebody else?  And then if somebody else doesn't like it, they can exert force against them?

Well shit, looks like the beginning of time was the only real moment when non-initiation of force was even a possibility.  The moment the first organism bit the second one, it was all over. 

Quote
Me, I don't follow the NAP.

I can tell!   :)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is the NAP Necessary?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 33 queries.