The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 08, 2009, 02:16:26 PM

Title: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic 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?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion 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. 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Andy 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.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic 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.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Bill Brasky 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. 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: NHArticleTen 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.

Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: patrickj 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. 

Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion 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. 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: blackie 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.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion 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. 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious 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.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: blackie 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.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion 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? 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: blackie 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.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion 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!   :)
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: blackie on May 08, 2009, 06:04:43 PM
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.
For now NAP only applies to humans, or persons. So prolly from the beginning of time until humans came into the picture.

"He started it!"

Everyone always claims someone else started it.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: patrickj on May 08, 2009, 06:37:36 PM
Quote
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. 

In a government run by consent, some sort of contract would have to be created outlining the parameters of the governance.  If a person agrees that X crime rewards X punishment, then when they commit that crime they have broken contract with their government.  As far as i'm concerned, if i sign a contract saying i will pay bob barker 27 cents every tuesday, that contract doesn't expire at some later point in time of my choice.   If you sign a contract agreeing to be governed, why would the contract ever expire unless explicitly given a timeline in the contract?

In this example, government is not any different than something like a bank loan.  If they are not governing people against their will, then they are somewhat of a business.  A business that specializes in full spectrum organization of a persons life.  So if a bank loan doesn't nullify itself over time, why would a governance contract?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion on May 08, 2009, 06:55:47 PM
In this example, government is not any different than something like a bank loan.  If they are not governing people against their will, then they are somewhat of a business.  A business that specializes in full spectrum organization of a persons life.  So if a bank loan doesn't nullify itself over time, why would a governance contract?

Because a loan is an agreement to pay back a specific amount of money at a specific rate.  "Being governed" is giving someone permission to exert force over you in a huge  variety of circumstances that I don't think could possibly be covered in a contract.  And if you granted someone permission to exert force over you at all, then they will come to be seen as the only legitimate wielders of such force, which contributes to their corruption and the eventual lack of any consensual agreement, which takes us right back to where we started. 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: patrickj on May 08, 2009, 07:02:12 PM
I'm not claiming that its viable, likely, or rational... i'm only claiming that it is possible for someone to contract into governance, and that contract be upheld.  You could also contract for governance in specific areas of your life, instead of all.  Seems like were pretty far off topic.  The point is, government can coexist with the NAP situationally
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: jeffersonish on May 09, 2009, 04:19:26 AM
The way I see it, the NAP is the basis of libertarian principles. I personally view the NAP and thus libertarianism as a very strong guiding philosophy.

I think the example of doing harm to someone raping your sister is a perfect example. I think the NAP means only she has the right to defend herself or employ others to do so. By employ, I don't mean hire necessarily. It would be within your rights to help her defend herself if she asked you to and you would still be adhering to the NAP. Further, you can reasonably assume from the circumstances if you see it happening that she would want you to help her defend herself even is she can't speak for herself at the moment. If you can help her in the moment, it follows you could assist her or act as her agent to take retribution too.

This is an example of where I part ways with the NAP. I am a minarchist because I think there are times when a minimal government is the best way to handle a situation. Handling the retribution of violent crime vs. self-defense to fight off an aggressor when they are doing the aggressing, is one of those situations. After listening to the Market for Liberty, I could meet the anarchists half-way and say, if you both belong to a private arbitration court and stipulate to using them either before the fact by contract or after, in lieu of the government court system, you would be allowed to.

I understand the whole give em an inch thing, but maybe if that system were implemented, it would preserve a maximum of liberty short of complete anarchist liberty for an even longer period than our Hamilton-influenced Constitution preserved the liberty we had in this nation when it was founded. (it wasn't really close to the minarchy I have in mind, but it was far more free than the European governments of the time.) The majority of our freedoms have been taken away during the Civil War, WWII and the Great Depression... until we had a double-whammy of the Iraq "War" followed by the major recession we're experiencing now.

anyway, I hope I'm making sense. I'm tired and going to bed now.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: yamnuska on May 09, 2009, 04:25:54 AM
No, but I wonder if some form of government must exist if you don't subscribe to it. If the NAP is absent does government not fill the void? It's a default people gravitate towards.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Libman 14 on May 09, 2009, 04:27:20 AM
NAP isn't an axiom, it's a scientifically-verifiable competitive advantage.

The only (meta)axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) is nature (i.e. evolution), through which everything else can be logically proven.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: mikehz on May 09, 2009, 09:39:56 AM
Say what you will about it, when you reach my age you learn to appreciate a good NAP in the afternoon.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 09, 2009, 09:45:07 AM
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?

No. In fact, it confuses the issue: Libertarians gain popular support from their use of the term, since who wouldn't claim that it was wrong to use violence against somebody unless they had or were going to use it against others? However, libertarians define aggression in an idiosyncratic way. For instance, if I leave my bike outside my house whilst I go in to collect something, and then you get on and cycle off libertarians would probably say that I can use a degree of force to stop you. However, in what way are you aggressing against me? You haven't laid a finger on me, just stolen my bike.

Likewise, in what way is fraud an instance of aggression? Fraud is a way of taking a person's property without their consent (because the conditions under which the property was taken were not the conditions consented to), but does it involve violence? Of course not.

Now, each of these cases involve violations of rights, but not the use of violence against a peaceful person. So, only if libertarians define aggression as "the violation of rights" can they say they think force should only be used to prevent aggression, or that various activities that don't involve violence can be called "aggression." This may be a good, workable definition, but it is still idiosyncratic.

Further, Ayn Rand said that the reason that the initiation of force should be prohibited is that she thought that rights could only be violated by the initiation of force. The above examples show that claim to be false, but we can go further: Even if we were to accept that rights can only be violated by initiations of force, it doesn't follow that all initiation of force should be prohibited. It only follows that rights violating initiations of force should be prohibited. If she had said that all initiations of force violate rights, her conclusion follows. But she didn't.

So, though they could still define aggression as "violations of rights," I suppose, I think libertarians should concentrate primarily on rights: Our property rights, first of all over ourselves (self-ownership), over previously unowned resources we mix our labour with, and in things we acquire from voluntary exchanges from others.

Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 09, 2009, 09:54:06 AM
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. 

How do distinguish these "governments" from other institutions? Firstly, this would mean that you are your house mate could be citizens of different governments, that there could be as many "governments" within an area as there are people, because each person signs up to a different "government."

Second, if these governments provide services, and allow others to compete with them in the provision of those services, what makes them any different from private firms that provide those services? If I can get my rights protected by your consensual "government" and I can get them protected by a security firm, then why is your "government" a government, and not just a security firm?

In the end, this consensual "government" idea is no different from market anarchism.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 09, 2009, 01:22:31 PM
I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 09, 2009, 01:40:43 PM
I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion" here, or why you think justice cannot be provided without it.

There are plenty of prominant minimal statists, or people who have claimed to be such, who also claim to hold to the NAP or some similar thing (non-initiation of force): Take Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, David Kelley, John Hospers, etc.

Of course, I think they are wrong, and they should either admit they support aggression or become anarchists (and I reckon Hospers really is an anarchist), but there you go!
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: blackie on May 09, 2009, 01:56:40 PM
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

Quote
Who is a libertarian?


Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

    "Zero Aggression Principle":

   A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

    Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
    — L. Neil Smith


    Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP"
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: patrickj on May 09, 2009, 02:14:05 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. 

How do distinguish these "governments" from other institutions? Firstly, this would mean that you are your house mate could be citizens of different governments, that there could be as many "governments" within an area as there are people, because each person signs up to a different "government."

Second, if these governments provide services, and allow others to compete with them in the provision of those services, what makes them any different from private firms that provide those services? If I can get my rights protected by your consensual "government" and I can get them protected by a security firm, then why is your "government" a government, and not just a security firm?

In the end, this consensual "government" idea is no different from market anarchism.

I made the point that they are pretty much the same thing.  The only differences would be that if a group of people contracted with a consensual government, they could create their own rules and leaders through democratic voting or something pre agreed upon.  For example, i could purchase a large amount of land and create my own voluntary government.  If my land became desirable, people might want to move to my community.  My voluntary government would have requirements that the community agrees upon before they move in. 

This situation is distinguished from a security firm, because its more of a private neighborhood with its own protections and restrictions than solely a protection agency. 

In any case, its a rather unlikely idea but i'm convinced that some people want to be governed. 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 09, 2009, 02:16:40 PM
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

Quote
Who is a libertarian?


Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

    "Zero Aggression Principle":

   A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

    Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
    — L. Neil Smith


    Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP"

Quote
A child learns that the use of force is wrong because its not right to hurt other people. More deeply considered, the ban on force derives from this principle: Each person owns himself.quote] - Charles Murray, What it Means to be  libertarian

Quote
Almost everyone agrees that it is proper and legitimate for a person to use force in self-defense against an attacker. The moral principle which justifies this is the libertarian principle of self-ownership. Each individual owns himself or herself.
- David Bergland, Libertarianism in One Lesson
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 09, 2009, 02:30:14 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. 

How do distinguish these "governments" from other institutions? Firstly, this would mean that you are your house mate could be citizens of different governments, that there could be as many "governments" within an area as there are people, because each person signs up to a different "government."

Second, if these governments provide services, and allow others to compete with them in the provision of those services, what makes them any different from private firms that provide those services? If I can get my rights protected by your consensual "government" and I can get them protected by a security firm, then why is your "government" a government, and not just a security firm?

In the end, this consensual "government" idea is no different from market anarchism.

I made the point that they are pretty much the same thing.  The only differences would be that if a group of people contracted with a consensual government, they could create their own rules and leaders through democratic voting or something pre agreed upon.  For example, i could purchase a large amount of land and create my own voluntary government.  If my land became desirable, people might want to move to my community.  My voluntary government would have requirements that the community agrees upon before they move in. 

This situation is distinguished from a security firm, because its more of a private neighborhood with its own protections and restrictions than solely a protection agency. 

Possibly. I think that you (or the association) would only be a government in this case, though, if only you authorised the use of force in this community. People might buy association protection services as condition of signing up, just like they buy other utilities when they join the planned community, but they may still retain the right to top that up buy hiring others, and can also hire protection from a competitor to protect against abuses of power (breach of contract) by you or the communal association. This also would make it different from a state (I can't get the French government to enforce my constitutional rights, for instance, and not just because the french government doesn't want to).

Quote
In any case, its a rather unlikely idea but i'm convinced that some people want to be governed. 

You know, I hear that a lot, but I don't believe it. They may say they want government, but when you ask them why they say things like "oh, we want roads." Well, that doesn't mean you want government, that means you want someone to provide roads. Or "We want police," but the same goes again - you don't want a government, you want somebody to provide police. You see what I mean? They are confusing the goods provided with the institution providing them, and so assuming that not wanting that institution is the same as not wanting those goods.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: MacFall on May 09, 2009, 03:32:38 PM
The NAP certainly does permit the use of force by agents of the victims of aggression. If A witnesses the commission of a crime against B by C, and B yells for help, why should he not be permitted to delegate his right of self-defense to A? Or if A stops the crime, without B's asking for help, B's right of self-defense has been nonetheless been exercised through the agency of A. The difference is that the delegation was implicit, rather than explicit.

The NAP makes assumptions of prevailing behavior. There is a general assumption that property owners do not want their front yards used as latrines, even if there is no sign making that prohibition explicit. There is a general assumption that a closed door means you aren't invited to enter. There is a general assumption that if a person is under attack, that person wants to be saved. Exceptions not made explicit by the exceptors would not be enforced, because people operate under assumptions derived from prevailing behavior.

Also, since most law would be developed as codes of conduct by DROs and insurers, that sort of thing would be worked out ahead of time. So whereas B from my example has the right to retroactively refuse A's interference in the crime, it is unlikely that any DRO would act upon such a complaint.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 09, 2009, 03:49:09 PM
I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion" here, or why you think justice cannot be provided without it.

There are plenty of prominant minimal statists, or people who have claimed to be such, who also claim to hold to the NAP or some similar thing (non-initiation of force): Take Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, David Kelley, John Hospers, etc.

Of course, I think they are wrong, and they should either admit they support aggression or become anarchists (and I reckon Hospers really is an anarchist), but there you go!

It seems like you answered your own question.  Many, probably most, criminals will not voluntarily punish themselves or even submit to judgment.  Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 09, 2009, 03:55:20 PM
The NAP certainly does permit the use of force by agents of the victims of aggression. If A witnesses the commission of a crime against B by C, and B yells for help, why should he not be permitted to delegate his right of self-defense to A? Or if A stops the crime, without B's asking for help, B's right of self-defense has been nonetheless been exercised through the agency of A. The difference is that the delegation was implicit, rather than explicit.

The NAP makes assumptions of prevailing behavior. There is a general assumption that property owners do not want their front yards used as latrines, even if there is no sign making that prohibition explicit. There is a general assumption that a closed door means you aren't invited to enter. There is a general assumption that if a person is under attack, that person wants to be saved. Exceptions not made explicit by the exceptors would not be enforced, because people operate under assumptions derived from prevailing behavior.

Also, since most law would be developed as codes of conduct by DROs and insurers, that sort of thing would be worked out ahead of time. So whereas B from my example has the right to retroactively refuse A's interference in the crime, it is unlikely that any DRO would act upon such a complaint.

This relies on someone giving a shit about B and interfering on B's behalf.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: jeffersonish on May 09, 2009, 03:56:43 PM
Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

LOL... It is funny how a minarchist in this community can be considered a statist, but if you're like me, you go out in the world to conduct the rest of your life and you get called a radical anarchist for suggesting that socialist healthcare is a bad thing. As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam."
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 09, 2009, 04:24:54 PM
I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion" here, or why you think justice cannot be provided without it.

There are plenty of prominant minimal statists, or people who have claimed to be such, who also claim to hold to the NAP or some similar thing (non-initiation of force): Take Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, David Kelley, John Hospers, etc.

Of course, I think they are wrong, and they should either admit they support aggression or become anarchists (and I reckon Hospers really is an anarchist), but there you go!

It seems like you answered your own question.  Many, probably most, criminals will not voluntarily punish themselves or even submit to judgment.  Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion on May 09, 2009, 04:27:34 PM
Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 09, 2009, 04:49:25 PM
Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

LOL... It is funny how a minarchist in this community can be considered a statist, but if you're like me, you go out in the world to conduct the rest of your life and you get called a radical anarchist for suggesting that socialist healthcare is a bad thing. As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam."

I hear ya :P

I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercion" here, or why you think justice cannot be provided without it.

There are plenty of prominant minimal statists, or people who have claimed to be such, who also claim to hold to the NAP or some similar thing (non-initiation of force): Take Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, David Kelley, John Hospers, etc.

Of course, I think they are wrong, and they should either admit they support aggression or become anarchists (and I reckon Hospers really is an anarchist), but there you go!

It seems like you answered your own question.  Many, probably most, criminals will not voluntarily punish themselves or even submit to judgment.  Have fun calling me a statist :)  It's ok, I accept it.

Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

Yeah, pretty much.  Sometimes I enjoy the anarchist/minarchist debate, but I've had it so many times that it's gotten pretty old.  Everyone knows how it goes by now ;)
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: mikehz on May 09, 2009, 05:52:35 PM
I don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend the minimal government model. Under a libertarian government, you retain the right to ignore the state. If you do, then the state has no interest in you, and will not aggress against you unless you aggress against someone who has voluntarily accepted their protection service. But, don't expect to make use of the courts or police. (And, I think you'll find it very difficult to enter into contracts should you opt out of the common system.)

I assume there would be competing "government" systems. Call them DROs if it comforts you.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: mikegogulski on May 09, 2009, 07:38:10 PM
This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

We care because we don't trust you -- or anyone else -- with the privilege remaining after step 999. Nor should we. Nor should you, for that matter.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Rillion on May 09, 2009, 07:54:51 PM
This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

We care because we don't trust you -- or anyone else -- with the privilege remaining after step 999. Nor should we. Nor should you, for that matter.

Since step 999 is about as likely to happen as unicorns swimming across the Atlantic, who cares? 
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: mikegogulski on May 09, 2009, 07:57:33 PM
This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

We care because we don't trust you -- or anyone else -- with the privilege remaining after step 999. Nor should we. Nor should you, for that matter.

Since step 999 is about as likely to happen as unicorns swimming across the Atlantic, who cares? 
Jeez, I dunno, like, maybe people who think that philosophy is important to political reality, and who are grateful that, at least, the "divine right of kings" justification for unaccountable power has been laughed out of serious discussion?

I'm just saying...

BTW, what's your problem with unicorns?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 06:07:36 AM
Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

Oh, I think the debate can be taken seriously, because it is interesting and informative.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 06:12:05 AM
I don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend the minimal government model. Under a libertarian government, you retain the right to ignore the state. If you do, then the state has no interest in you, and will not aggress against you unless you aggress against someone who has voluntarily accepted their protection service. But, don't expect to make use of the courts or police. (And, I think you'll find it very difficult to enter into contracts should you opt out of the common system.)

The boom in private arbitration occurred when arbitration resolutions were not enforcible in public courts, and the Law Merchant evolved precisely because people couldn't get one standard recognised by one court to be recognised by others. I think you may be wrong about the "common system".

In fact, the Law Merchant evolved to provide a common system of rules or laws where states weren't providing them.

Quote
I assume there would be competing "government" systems. Call them DROs if it comforts you.

I will. It stretches language entirely out of shape to call them governments.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 06:16:10 AM
Well, anarchy is scarcely an option now. Even just stopping the growth of government would be a victory now!

This is why I refuse to take the minarchist/anarchist discussion seriously.  If we agree on the first 999 out of 1,000 steps in terms of minimizing government, who the fuck cares if we agree on the 1,000th? 

except that some minarchists...aren't anywhere close to "mini" anything...so, in those cases...there is still a big gap between "some gunpoint government" and NO gunpoint government...

True, but even that would be an improvement. the government of the Friedman's Free to Choose is bigger than the government of Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, which is bigger than the "government" of Hospers' Libertarianism, which is more government than in Rothbard's For a New Liberty. But Free to Choose is a vast improvement on what we have today, and it would be silly for anarchists to reject working for a small reduction of the state with people who don't want to go further just because it is not the complete abolition of the state, and their allies don't want that.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 09:43:08 AM
Blah

Look, suppose that there is a gang in your neighbourhood going around robbing, raping and murdering. Now suppose that there is no way you could get rid of the whold gang at the present. However, you do know that there is a guy in the gang who wants to be its leader, and he wants the gang to do less robbing, less raping, less murdering. Should you say that we shouldn't support that guy becoming the leader of the gang just because there shouldn't be a gang, even when opposing this guy means continuing with a gang that engages in more thefts, more rapes, and more murders than he would encourage?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: NHArticleTen on May 10, 2009, 10:09:36 AM
Blah

Look, suppose that there is a gang in your neighbourhood going around robbing, raping and murdering. Now suppose that there is no way you could get rid of the whold gang at the present. However, you do know that there is a guy in the gang who wants to be its leader, and he wants the gang to do less robbing, less raping, less murdering. Should you say that we shouldn't support that guy becoming the leader of the gang just because there shouldn't be a gang, even when opposing this guy means continuing with a gang that engages in more thefts, more rapes, and more murders than he would encourage?

yes
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 10:21:40 AM
Blah

Look, suppose that there is a gang in your neighbourhood going around robbing, raping and murdering. Now suppose that there is no way you could get rid of the whold gang at the present. However, you do know that there is a guy in the gang who wants to be its leader, and he wants the gang to do less robbing, less raping, less murdering. Should you say that we shouldn't support that guy becoming the leader of the gang just because there shouldn't be a gang, even when opposing this guy means continuing with a gang that engages in more thefts, more rapes, and more murders than he would encourage?

yes

Ah, so you are a pro-theft, pro-rape, and pro-murder libertarian?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 10:35:43 AM
Blah

Look, suppose that there is a gang in your neighbourhood going around robbing, raping and murdering. Now suppose that there is no way you could get rid of the whold gang at the present. However, you do know that there is a guy in the gang who wants to be its leader, and he wants the gang to do less robbing, less raping, less murdering. Should you say that we shouldn't support that guy becoming the leader of the gang just because there shouldn't be a gang, even when opposing this guy means continuing with a gang that engages in more thefts, more rapes, and more murders than he would encourage?

yes

Ah, so you are a pro-theft, pro-rape, and pro-murder libertarian?

ummm....nope...

I'm anti-theft and rightly refuse even one looter/bureacrat/jackboot/mercenary "tax-person"

I'm anti-rape and rightly seek to arm and prepare each and every sovereign individual against such atrocities...no matter who, where, what, when , and how...

I'm anti-murder and rightly seek to arm, prepare, and stand beside each and every sovereign individual against such genocides...no matter who/where/what/when/how...
So why would you refuse to work with somebody who wants less murder and rape and theft just because they might not want zero murder, theft and rape? If working with them increases the likelihood of having less murder, rape, and theft, and we are more likely to have less than none, shouldn't an anti-theft, murder and rape person want help get less?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 10:50:23 AM
Blah

Look, suppose that there is a gang in your neighbourhood going around robbing, raping and murdering. Now suppose that there is no way you could get rid of the whold gang at the present. However, you do know that there is a guy in the gang who wants to be its leader, and he wants the gang to do less robbing, less raping, less murdering. Should you say that we shouldn't support that guy becoming the leader of the gang just because there shouldn't be a gang, even when opposing this guy means continuing with a gang that engages in more thefts, more rapes, and more murders than he would encourage?

yes

Ah, so you are a pro-theft, pro-rape, and pro-murder libertarian?

ummm....nope...

I'm anti-theft and rightly refuse even one looter/bureacrat/jackboot/mercenary "tax-person"

I'm anti-rape and rightly seek to arm and prepare each and every sovereign individual against such atrocities...no matter who, where, what, when , and how...

I'm anti-murder and rightly seek to arm, prepare, and stand beside each and every sovereign individual against such genocides...no matter who/where/what/when/how...
So why would you refuse to work with somebody who wants less murder and rape and theft just because they might not want zero murder, theft and rape? If working with them increases the likelihood of having less murder, rape, and theft, and we are more likely to have less than none, shouldn't an anti-theft, murder and rape person want help get less?

so you're ok with someone else compromising if it only results in...

your being looted to nothingness...
No. I am OK working with somebody who wants to make sure I am looted of less than I am looted of today, even if he doesn't want me not to be looted at all.

Quote
your being ass-fucking-raped-tl-dead-in-a-prison-full-of-ass-fuckers...

your being hunted down and murdered by the mobocracy looter minions that you have rightfully refused...


hmmm....

Whaaaaa?????

Quote
I guess others might be willing to compromise so long as it's YOUR ass that's on the line...

but I won't be participating in ANY compromises where YOUR ass is on the line...

simply because I am willing to see who they will ass-fuck and murder next...


hmmm...

But you are compromising. You are saying that it is better that you bee looted of everything than work with anybody other than those who don't want you to be looted at all. On the other hand, I see that being looted of less is closer to not being looted at all, and so closer to what I want. You are like a person who refuses fifty bucks, and so ends up with no money, because he wasn't willing to accept anything but a hundred bucks.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 11:13:46 AM
sadly enough...you are mistaken...and have voluntarily chosen to participate in the slippery slope of "compromise" where it is ALWAYS just a question of whether or not a looter will exist just one more day...

and I rightly refuse fifty and/or a hundred dollars when it's all blood money...
Right. But in my example, it wasn't.

Let me put it this way: You are someone who is happier with somebody stealing 100% of your money than working with somebody who will ensure only 50% of your money is stolen.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 12:13:22 PM
sadly enough...you are mistaken...and have voluntarily chosen to participate in the slippery slope of "compromise" where it is ALWAYS just a question of whether or not a looter will exist just one more day...

and I rightly refuse fifty and/or a hundred dollars when it's all blood money...
Right. But in my example, it wasn't.

Let me put it this way: You are someone who is happier with somebody stealing 100% of your money than working with somebody who will ensure only 50% of your money is stolen.

I'm not sorry that I find it pure folly to compromise with the very person who IS willing to STEAL "only" half of my property...

Is only having half your property an improvement on having all your property stolen?

Quote
I'm not sorry that I find it pure folly to compromise with the very person who IS willing to RAPE "only" on the odd days...

Is raping only on odd days not an improvement on raping every day?

Quote
I'm not sorry that I find it pure folly to compromise with the very person who IS willing to MURDER "only" on the even days...

Isn't murdering only on even days an improvement on murdering every day?

Quote
again...feel free...and even ENCOURAGED...to relate that some people...

are going to rightly refuse EVEN the theft of half their property...

Of course. And good for them. What does that have to do with anything? Why reject a move from stealing all of a person's property to stealing half their property just because it is not a complete end to theft? It is still better than stealing all of people's property.

Quote
are going to rightly refuse EVEN being raped only on odd days...

Good for them. But why decide to stick with being raped every day because the only alternative being offered is only being raped on odd days?

Quote
are going to rightly refuse EVEN being murdered only on even days...

Well, somebody can only be murdered once, so that's moot.

Quote
by now you should understand completely that today it's fifty of your hundred that you willingly compromise and surrender to the looters...

then tomorrow it's twenty-five of the fifty they left you with yesterday...that you willingly compromise and surrender to the looters...

then the next day it's twelve and fifty-cents of the twenty-five they left you lying in the dirt with the day before...

then it's not enough that they got six and seventy-five cents, so they did a little fudge-packing too...

I can't tell what the hell you are talking about here. Plainly, if one guy is offering to steal only 75% of my money, but another is offering to only steal 50%, I will choose the guy stealing only 50%.

You, on the other hand, would choose the guy stealing 100%, because there is nobody saying they will not steal anything.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: patrickj on May 10, 2009, 01:54:03 PM
So much for this discussion
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 01:59:38 PM
Plainly, if one guy is offering to steal only 75% of my money, but another is offering to only steal 50%, I will choose the guy stealing only 50%.
Why not just refuse, repel, destroy, and eliminate them BOTH?

I take it you are sending this post from your jail cell? Or the grave? Having bravely attempted to refuse, repel and destroy this thief?

Quote
You, on the other hand, would choose the guy stealing 100%, because there is nobody saying they will not steal anything.
Yeah, this guy get's refused, repelled, destroyed, and eliminated too...

Again, are you in prison, or a grave?


REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM

LIVE FREE OR DIE

JUST SAY NO[/quote]

Did that once. The hospital time wasn't so bad, but I'd rather not repeat it.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 10, 2009, 02:03:57 PM
Dude, dont try. It doesnt know how to think clearly.

I would have erased its posts, but realized I made this in the general section.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 10, 2009, 02:11:33 PM
Dude, dont try. It doesnt know how to think clearly.

I would have erased its posts, but realized I made this in the general section.

Fair enough
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 11, 2009, 09:50:24 AM
Hmmm....I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT OR TOLERATE EVEN A PERCENTAGE OF RAPE...Hmmm...

Yes you are, because you are saying that we shouldn't work with those that want to cut rapes by 50%, when not working with them won't lead to any reduction in the number of rapes. You are saying "better that don't cut rape at all than we work with people that only want to cut it 50%."
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: patrickj on May 11, 2009, 01:02:36 PM
Look man, nobody cares what you have to say because you sound like a raving lunatic. 

Your delivery is just so mindbogglingly counter productive, that i question if you even believe the things you say. 

Your living vicariously through your keyboard, but the world you think you experience is the opposite of the world you project.

Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 11, 2009, 01:30:17 PM
Look man, nobody cares what you have to say because you sound like a raving lunatic. 

Your delivery is just so mindbogglingly counter productive, that i question if you even believe the things you say. 

Your living vicariously through your keyboard, but the world you think you experience is the opposite of the world you project.



You new here?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: patrickj on May 11, 2009, 01:48:49 PM
Not really.  I like to figure out how his mind ticks.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on May 11, 2009, 01:59:29 PM
Look man, nobody cares what you have to say because you sound like a raving lunatic. 

Your delivery is just so mindbogglingly counter productive, that i question if you even believe the things you say. 

Your living vicariously through your keyboard, but the world you think you experience is the opposite of the world you project.



I'd say Rob was a Poe, but I've seen videos of him in NH.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 11, 2009, 02:08:14 PM
Hmmm....I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT OR TOLERATE EVEN A PERCENTAGE OF RAPE...Hmmm...

Yes you are, because you are saying that we shouldn't work with those that want to cut rapes by 50%, when not working with them won't lead to any reduction in the number of rapes. You are saying "better that don't cut rape at all than we work with people that only want to cut it 50%."

and yet still...

WHY would you even want to be around such a person?

WHY?

I personally could not be in the same ROOM with a person that is "ok" with "fifty-percent of rapes"!

WHAT THE FUCK SKIPPY!?!?!?!?!?!

Well, if the alternative is being in a room with somebody who would rather not cut any rape than work with somebody who is willing to end only 50%, the choice seems easy.

Quote from: Murray N. Rothbard
In the field of strategic thinking, it behooves libertarians to heed the lessons of the Marxists, because they have been thinking about strategy for radical social change longer than any other group. Thus, the Marxists see two critically important strategic fallacies that “deviate” from the proper path: one they call “left-wing sectarianism”; the other, and opposing, deviation is “right-wing opportunism.” The critics of libertarian “extremist” principles are the analog of the Marxian “right-wing opportunists.” The major problem with the opportunists is that by confining themselves strictly to gradual and “practical” programs, programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, they are in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective, the libertarian goal. Hewho confines himself to calling for a two percent reduction in taxes helps to bury the ultimate goal of abolition of taxation altogether. By concentrating on the immediate means, he helps liquidate the ultimate
goal, and therefore the point of being a libertarian in the first place. If libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? The answer is no one, hence another major source of defection from the ranks in recent years has been the erroneous path of opportunism.

...If, then, the libertarian must advocate the immediate attainment of liberty and abolition of statism, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to this overriding end, what further strategic stance may a libertarian take in today’s world? Must he necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are “transitional demands,” steps toward liberty in practice, necessarily illegitimate? No, for this would fall into the other self-defeating strategic trap of “left-wing sectarianism.” For while libertarians have too often been opportunists who lose sight of or undercut their ultimate goal, some have erred in the opposite direction: fearing and condemning any advances toward the idea as necessarily selling out the goal itself. The tragedy is that these sectarians, in condemning all advances that fall short of the goal, serve to render vain and futile the cherished goal itself. For much as all of us wo uld be overjoyed to arrive at total liberty at a single bound, the realistic prospects for such a mighty leap are limited. If social change is not always tiny and gradual, neither does it usually occur in a single leap. In rejecting any transitional approachesto the goal, then, these sectarian libertarians make it impossible for the goal itself ever to be reached. Thus, the sectarians can eventually be as fully “liquidationist” of the pure goal as the opportunists themselves

...How, then, can we know whether any halfway measure or transitional demand should be hailed as a step forward or condemned as an opportunistic betrayal? There are two vitally important criteria for answering this crucial question: (1) that, whatever the transitional demands, the ultimate end of liberty be always held aloft as the desired goal; and (2) that no steps or means ever explicitly or implicitly contradict the ultimate goal. A shortrun demand may not go as far as we would like, but it should always be consistent with the final end; if not, the short-run goal will work against the long-run purpose, and opportunistic liquidation of libertarian principle will have arrived.

You are the dude in bold.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 11, 2009, 02:10:37 PM
I agree with NHArticleTen on just about every single thing I have ever seen him write, and find myself largely agreeing with MaineShark, as well.


I think if NHArticleTen bumped up the rhetoric ten times what he is currently doing, he would still be well within the bounds of advocating what needs to be done.  
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on May 11, 2009, 02:13:44 PM
I agree with NHArticleTen on just about every single thing I have ever seen him write, and find myself largely agreeing with MaineShark, as well.


I think if NHArticleTen bumped up the rhetoric ten times what he is currently doing, he would still be well within the bounds of advocating what needs to be done.  

you are clearly not familiar with anything Rob has said.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on May 11, 2009, 05:52:35 PM
you obviously have no idea what a poe is
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 11, 2009, 07:38:13 PM
I hope NH10 feels a miserable sense of futility, now that I deleted his big irrelevent posts.


Onto the real discussion.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Kevin Freeheart on May 11, 2009, 08:07:35 PM
It's possible to be pro-liberty without adherence to the non-aggression principle. But the NAP is the core of libertarianism. You might be a neoconservative or a classical liberal and have most of the same stances as a libertarian, depending on what it is you value (and everyone does, even if they can't identify it).

There are some people who say that the NAP and libertarianism aren't connected... Those people are why I don't use the term "libertarian" for myself except in rare circumstances.

I would furthermore say to be a PRINCIPLED libertarian, you must be an anarchist as well.

That said, I'm interested in liberty, and until the minarchists become the comparative advocates of "large government", the point is moot and you're my ally where we agree.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 12, 2009, 02:40:22 PM
It's possible to be pro-liberty without adherence to the non-aggression principle. But the NAP is the core of libertarianism. You might be a neoconservative or a classical liberal and have most of the same stances as a libertarian, depending on what it is you value (and everyone does, even if they can't identify it).

There are some people who say that the NAP and libertarianism aren't connected... Those people are why I don't use the term "libertarian" for myself except in rare circumstances.

I would furthermore say to be a PRINCIPLED libertarian, you must be an anarchist as well.

That said, I'm interested in liberty, and until the minarchists become the comparative advocates of "large government", the point is moot and you're my ally where we agree.

I am wholly a libertarian who is self styled. I think any government run by reason and prudence is best, and that the NAP does not necessarily have to be the basis for libertarian thought.

Why is the NAP necessary for libertarian thought? What is their essential connection?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 12, 2009, 02:46:23 PM
It's possible to be pro-liberty without adherence to the non-aggression principle. But the NAP is the core of libertarianism. You might be a neoconservative or a classical liberal and have most of the same stances as a libertarian, depending on what it is you value (and everyone does, even if they can't identify it).

There are some people who say that the NAP and libertarianism aren't connected... Those people are why I don't use the term "libertarian" for myself except in rare circumstances.

I would furthermore say to be a PRINCIPLED libertarian, you must be an anarchist as well.

That said, I'm interested in liberty, and until the minarchists become the comparative advocates of "large government", the point is moot and you're my ally where we agree.

I am wholly a libertarian who is self styled. I think any government run by reason and prudence is best, and that the NAP does not necessarily have to be the basis for libertarian thought.

Why is the NAP necessary for libertarian thought? What is their essential connection?

I already gave my beef with the NAP (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=29158.msg541382#msg541382), but I think all states are inherently unjust and unnecessary.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 12, 2009, 05:42:09 PM

I am wholly a libertarian who is self styled. I think any government run by reason and prudence is best, and that the NAP does not necessarily have to be the basis for libertarian thought.

Why is the NAP necessary for libertarian thought? What is their essential connection?


Why?  Because it is a deontological bright line rule which attempts to clarify what is, and is not permissible.


Saying that the rule is not necessary, because people who like liberty will more or less follow the rule anyway, doesn't really make sense.   If they are more or less following the NAP anyway, then they are doing it because they explicitly understand that there are bright line demarcations for what people ought, and ought not, to do vis a vis not harming, stealing and defrauding other people.


For the most part, libertarian-oriented people who say they reject the NAP seem to be denying reality.  They are engaged in some silly game of [insert 50 year old burnt out hippy voice] "Don't label me, man.. I'm a non-conformist and I don't need your dogmatic NAP rules oppressing me," and so they seem to reject the "label "more than they do the substance of what is contained in the label.  Which of course, makes the rejection irrational if that is their primary line of thinking.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 12, 2009, 11:20:13 PM
For the most part, libertarian-oriented people who say they reject the NAP seem to be denying reality.  They are engaged in some silly game of [insert 50 year old burnt out hippy voice] "Don't label me, man.. I'm a non-conformist and I don't need your dogmatic NAP rules oppressing me," and so they seem to reject the "label "more than they do the substance of what is contained in the label.  Which of course, makes the rejection irrational if that is their primary line of thinking.

What about those of us minarchists who realize that the NAP prohibits any form of government?  The NAP is inconsistent with any government no matter how you slice it.  I don't see myself as being "non-conformist" or hippy-like.  It's simply a fact that I don't agree 100% with the NAP.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 12, 2009, 11:45:04 PM

What about those of us minarchists who realize that the NAP prohibits any form of government?  The NAP is inconsistent with any government no matter how you slice it.  I don't see myself as being "non-conformist" or hippy-like.  It's simply a fact that I don't agree 100% with the NAP.


Minarchists come in two groups, for the most part, in regards to the NAP:

(1) Those who argue that the State doesn't actually violate the NAP, as governments function is ostensibly to protect peoples Rights, and in doing so, it cannot be argued (by them) that their Rights are being abridged by being protected.

(2) Those who have had the epiphany that the aforementioned group is kind of kidding themselves by thinking that.


I think it is fair to say that the second group is the more enlightened of the two.... but in any case, neither group inherently objects to the substance of the Non Aggression Principle.   What they want, is simply to carve out an exception for a very limited case regarding who the NAP should not apply to (e.g. government).   The exception they seek to carve out, has more to do with defining who is exempt from it, rather than when it should not apply in regards to it being applied to everyone equally.   

The first group of minarchists does not even recognize that they are violating the NAP, so it really cannot be claimed that they are rejecting it.  Rather, they are simply deluding themselves into thinking (via an argument they accept), that government does not violate Rights, it only protects them.   

The second group recognizes the NAP abridgment, but rationalizes it away on whatever grounds (e.. pragmatism insofar as the necessity of government, etc...), but in that case, they are not outright rejecting the substance of the NAP either.  They merely accept that they are inconsistent.  Most minarchists in this group, however, still very much abide by the bright line deontological rule of the NAP insofar as they think it very much applies to inter-citizen conduct.  They merely think it doesn't apply to government.  They are not usually saying it doesn't apply to citizens.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 12, 2009, 11:58:46 PM

What about those of us minarchists who realize that the NAP prohibits any form of government?  The NAP is inconsistent with any government no matter how you slice it.  I don't see myself as being "non-conformist" or hippy-like.  It's simply a fact that I don't agree 100% with the NAP.


Minarchists come in two groups, for the most part, in regards to the NAP:

(1) Those who argue that the State doesn't actually violate the NAP, as governments function is ostensibly to protect peoples Rights, and in doing so, it cannot be argued (by them) that their Rights are being abridged by being protected.

(2) Those who have had the epiphany that the aforementioned group is kind of kidding themselves by thinking that.


I think it is fair to say that the second group is the more enlightened of the two.... but in any case, neither group inherently objects to the substance of the Non Aggression Principle.   What they want, is simply to carve out an exception for a very limited case regarding who the NAP should not apply to (e.g. government).   The exception they seek to carve out, has more to do with defining who is exempt from it, rather than when it should not apply in regards to it being applied to everyone equally.   

The first group of minarchists does not even recognize that they are violating the NAP, so it really cannot be claimed that they are rejecting it.  Rather, they are simply deluding themselves into thinking (via an argument they accept), that government does not violate Rights, it only protects them.   

The second group recognizes the NAP abridgment, but rationalizes it away on whatever grounds (e.. pragmatism insofar as the necessity of government, etc...), but in that case, they are not outright rejecting the substance of the NAP either.  They merely accept that they are inconsistent.  Most minarchists in this group, however, still very much abide by the bright line deontological rule of the NAP insofar as they think it very much applies to inter-citizen conduct.  They merely think it doesn't apply to government.  They are not usually saying it doesn't apply to citizens.

I was specifically talking about minarchists who realize that government violates the NAP.  I don't think I'm inconsistent unless I'm being judged by the NAP.  However, I reject the NAP so I think it's silly to judge me as inconsistent based on a principle I don't believe in.  I hope you realize that most people in America would probably agree with your same argument applied to a slightly different context.  Libertarians are inconsistent because they nominally share some positions with both Republicans and Democrats simultaneously.  Most people use the Democrat-Republican yardstick, not the NAP.  So, are we all inconsistent here?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 13, 2009, 12:12:57 AM

I was specifically talking about minarchists who realize that government violates the NAP.  I don't think I'm inconsistent unless I'm being judged by the NAP.  However, I reject the NAP so I think it's silly to judge me as inconsistent based on a principle I don't believe in.  I hope you realize that most people in America would probably agree with your same argument applied to a slightly different context.  Libertarians are inconsistent because they nominally share some positions with both Republicans and Democrats simultaneously.  Most people use the Democrat-Republican yardstick, not the NAP.  So, are we all inconsistent here?

Republicans and Democrats have virtually no underlying philosophy.   Their beliefs are literally incoherent.   Normal people might use them as a yardstick because they don't know any better... People who understand philosophy should never be looking to these two useless groups for any sort of reference by which to compare themselves to.  Neither group has any kind of underlying first principle from which all of their beliefs on every single issue conceivable, then logically flow from.


I will have to read further back through the thread to see why you specifically objected to the NAP, before I offer any further commentary, as I need to know exactly what it is you oppose about the NAP, beyond the fact that you think the government should be exempt from it.    Do you actually object to the NAP applying to inter-citizen conduct?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 13, 2009, 12:31:48 AM
Here it is:

I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

Government is made of citizens.  Therefore, there are certain citizens whom I would grant the power to violate the NAP in certain circumstances.  Sure, say that I am "excluding" a specific case, but that is still a violation of the NAP.  The NAP is not stated as something that is sometimes optional.  It's axiomatic and it defines the core of anarchist libertarian beliefs.  That's not where I'm coming from, and that's not where I ended up.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 13, 2009, 07:43:20 AM
For the most part, libertarian-oriented people who say they reject the NAP seem to be denying reality.  They are engaged in some silly game of [insert 50 year old burnt out hippy voice] "Don't label me, man.. I'm a non-conformist and I don't need your dogmatic NAP rules oppressing me," and so they seem to reject the "label "more than they do the substance of what is contained in the label.  Which of course, makes the rejection irrational if that is their primary line of thinking.

What about those of us minarchists who realize that the NAP prohibits any form of government?  The NAP is inconsistent with any government no matter how you slice it.  I don't see myself as being "non-conformist" or hippy-like.  It's simply a fact that I don't agree 100% with the NAP.

Well, I suppose that depends on the role you see moral principles as playing at all. You could say that they are guidelines that should be generally cleaved to, but that there are exceptions.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 13, 2009, 07:46:10 AM
I was specifically talking about minarchists who realize that government violates the NAP.  I don't think I'm inconsistent unless I'm being judged by the NAP.  However, I reject the NAP so I think it's silly to judge me as inconsistent based on a principle I don't believe in.  I hope you realize that most people in America would probably agree with your same argument applied to a slightly different context.  Libertarians are inconsistent because they nominally share some positions with both Republicans and Democrats simultaneously.  Most people use the Democrat-Republican yardstick, not the NAP.  So, are we all inconsistent here?

Perhaps such a minarchist's position is not a ZAP (Zero Aggression), but a minimise aggression principle, so you have as little institutionalised aggression as you see practicable?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 13, 2009, 07:50:32 AM
Here it is:

I don't believe that most libertarians, myself included, follow or believe in the NAP.  Support for the existence of any sort of government is a violation of the NAP, leaving NAP only to the anarchist wing of the movement.  I do think the government has a role in providing a justice system, because I don't believe there can be justice without coercion.

Government is made of citizens.

Which is not the same as saying that all citizens are the government, of course.

Quote
Therefore, there are certain citizens whom I would grant the power to violate the NAP in certain circumstances.

To aggress against you? Or to agress against somebody else? Why can't you authorise somebody other than those citizens to violate the NAP? What if not everybody else wants to grant those citizens that power?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 13, 2009, 08:13:48 PM
This sums up my position pretty well:

Quote
Other consequentialist libertarians do not promote the non-aggression principle at all; they simply believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society, even if securing this liberty involves some governmental actions that would be considered violations of the non-aggression principle. It just so happens that these actions are limited in the free society they envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#Consequentialist_criticism

I would authorize government agents who are engaged in the administration of justice the ability to aggress against me or anyone who violates does harm to another person.  You could say that this is like a "minimal aggression principle", but it certainly isn't consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle.  I just don't feel the need to bandy labels around in hopes that they might fit after enough abuse.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 13, 2009, 08:52:54 PM

I would authorize government agents who are engaged in the administration of justice the ability to aggress against me or anyone who violates does harm to another person. 


That's not necessarily an act of initiating aggression though, in the context of the NAP, in the same way that self defense is not considered initiating force.  It is simply a response to a transgression.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 13, 2009, 09:11:49 PM

I would authorize government agents who are engaged in the administration of justice the ability to aggress against me or anyone who violates does harm to another person. 


That's typically not considered initiating aggression though, in the context of the NAP, in the same way that self defense is not considered initiating force.  It is simply a response to a transgression.

I thought you were just saying that government violates the NAP?  It certainly does violate the NAP if the person being aggressed against by my government does not consent to its laws or the enforcement of its system of justice.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 13, 2009, 09:29:43 PM

I thought you were just saying that government violates the NAP? 


In some regards they do. And in some regards they don't [violate the NAP].

All depends what specific actions we are talking about.

In the specific context of exactly the comment of yours that I quoted, that alone is arguably not a NAP violation.


What is a NAP violation, are numerous other things government typically does, which they need not do.  Taxation being one example, which would have to be replaced with a voluntary user-fee type system.  Jurisdictional monopoly of both land and services being another example of where the government violates the NAP.  Government need not do that either, as we could have a polycentric law system.  Etc.. etc...
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: jeffersonish on May 14, 2009, 03:27:36 AM

I thought you were just saying that government violates the NAP? 


In some regards they do. And in some regards they don't [violate the NAP].

All depends what specific actions we are talking about.

In the specific context of exactly the comment of yours that I quoted, that alone is arguably not a NAP violation.


What is a NAP violation, are numerous other things government typically does, which they need not do.  Taxation being one example, which would have to be replaced with a voluntary user-fee type system.  Jurisdictional monopoly of both land and services being another example of where the government violates the NAP.  Government need not do that either, as we could have a polycentric law system.  Etc.. etc...

When you remove all uninitiated force from the agency formerly known as government, it is no longer government. In other words, you could define government as an organization that violates the NAP and you would be well on your way to a working definition.

I'm all for the NAP in that I understand the moral implications. I simply am a pragmatist and would have to believe strongly in the non-governmental alternatives to certain functions the government now undertakes. I haven't seen anyone make an argument that makes sense to me for complete NAP aka complete anarchy. Until someone does, I'm squarely in the minarchist camp. That said, even those government functions I would like to keep could be modified to minimize the violation of the NAP. Some have been mentioned like voluntary "taxes." Also, I don't think it would be hard to find people to serve on a part time basis for a minimal government as volunteers. We already do that to an extent with volunteer fire departments and in a lot of cases, people like city council reps receive so little pay, it might as well be voluntary in smaller locales.

As far as the connection between NAP and libertarian, the functioning definition in society for a libertarian is someone who espouses limited government. I don't think if you asked most people who have some clue about libertarianism, but aren't immersed in it, for a definition, that a very large percentage would say, "an anarchist." Therefore, I group anarchists (the NO government variety vs. say anarcho-syndicalists) and minarchists together when I use the term libertarian. Of course, I'll respect Ian's desires and exclude him from that designation. LOL
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 14, 2009, 05:33:50 AM

I would authorize government agents who are engaged in the administration of justice the ability to aggress against me or anyone who violates does harm to another person. 


That's typically not considered initiating aggression though, in the context of the NAP, in the same way that self defense is not considered initiating force.  It is simply a response to a transgression.

I thought you were just saying that government violates the NAP?  It certainly does violate the NAP if the person being aggressed against by my government does not consent to its laws or the enforcement of its system of justice.

But this is not what is talked about as aggression, and is also really why you have to read my criticism of the NAP earlier in this thread.

Incidentally, the need for consent to things, from Locke, rests on the presumption that you are bound by certain rules whether you like it or not, whether you have consented or not: To take a simple example, the reason that consent is needed for a government to legitimately tax is because everybody, including those in government, has an obligation not to take other people's property without their consent. This obligation is not something that is consented to.

Likewise, take another example: A shop keeper sells you a newspaper. I didn't consent to that. Why doesn't that matter? Because whether you and the shopkeeper get to make this exchange is not something that requires my consent, or something I am entitled to prevent. The need for consent, then, is limited to things that effect me.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 14, 2009, 05:40:28 AM

I thought you were just saying that government violates the NAP? 


In some regards they do. And in some regards they don't [violate the NAP].

All depends what specific actions we are talking about.

In the specific context of exactly the comment of yours that I quoted, that alone is arguably not a NAP violation.


What is a NAP violation, are numerous other things government typically does, which they need not do.  Taxation being one example, which would have to be replaced with a voluntary user-fee type system.  Jurisdictional monopoly of both land and services being another example of where the government violates the NAP.  Government need not do that either, as we could have a polycentric law system.  Etc.. etc...

Could you tell me what a government is, then, or what a state is? If I can get the services one "government" provides from another "government" without even moving house or anything, then I can't tell the difference, really, between that government and any private firm or club? Say the government service is, for instance, protection against crime or torts: What would make one of these things you call a "government" different from all the security firms competing out there? I mean, I can switch my security provider without moving house, and security firms provide law enforcement services, so what is the difference?

I think that when you get to that level, you are just not talking about governments anymore.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 14, 2009, 08:49:18 AM

I would authorize government agents who are engaged in the administration of justice the ability to aggress against me or anyone who violates does harm to another person. 


That's typically not considered initiating aggression though, in the context of the NAP, in the same way that self defense is not considered initiating force.  It is simply a response to a transgression.

I thought you were just saying that government violates the NAP?  It certainly does violate the NAP if the person being aggressed against by my government does not consent to its laws or the enforcement of its system of justice.

But this is not what is talked about as aggression, and is also really why you have to read my criticism of the NAP earlier in this thread.

Incidentally, the need for consent to things, from Locke, rests on the presumption that you are bound by certain rules whether you like it or not, whether you have consented or not: To take a simple example, the reason that consent is needed for a government to legitimately tax is because everybody, including those in government, has an obligation not to take other people's property without their consent. This obligation is not something that is consented to.

Likewise, take another example: A shop keeper sells you a newspaper. I didn't consent to that. Why doesn't that matter? Because whether you and the shopkeeper get to make this exchange is not something that requires my consent, or something I am entitled to prevent. The need for consent, then, is limited to things that effect me.

Show me where Locke believes that in a state of nature people are "bound by certain rules", particularly in regard to violation of property rights.  Locke believed that government was necessary for the protection of property rights.  The "obligation" in Locke's world is enforced by government.  I think nearly everyone believes there is a moral obligation to not initiate force on others, but certain people do not follow that obligation at certain times, and I believe that in these cases a government is necessary to provide justice for those aggressed against.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 14, 2009, 11:04:23 AM
Show me where Locke believes that in a state of nature people are "bound by certain rules", particularly in regard to violation of property rights. 

Chapter 2, "Of The State of Nature," section 6:

Quote
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions

Quote
Locke believed that government was necessary for the protection of property rights.

This proceeds too quickly: Locke though that government was necessary to protect property rights whilst also avoiding the "inconveniences" of leaving that protection up to the individual himself. But his argument about these inconveniences was fallacious: he said that people couldn't be trusted to judge in their own cases, and therefore require an independent and impartial third party to judge for them, and to reach a final resolution. However, two responses can be made to this:

1) The need for an independent and impartial third party does not imply that everybody needs the same independent and impartial third party to resolve their disputes. It is no more logically the case that because everybody needs an independent and impartial third party thate there is an indpendent and impartial third party everybody needs than it would be to claim that because everybody likes at least one TV program, there is at least one TV program everybody likes. You and I could have our dispute resolved by A, and yet Alex Free Market and free agent can have their dispute resolved by B.

2) The argument that there needs to be an independent and impartial third party to achieve a final verdict in a dispute is an argument against government, not for it: This is because one party in a dispute could be the government itself. But if the government itself is supposed to be the final authority, with a monopoly on ultimate resolution of disputes and use of legitimate force, then so long as government exists, there can be no independent and impartial third party in disputes with it.

On these issues, I reccomend you check out this informal talk by Roderick Long (http://www.mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3), which is transcribed here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html).

Quote
The "obligation" in Locke's world is enforced by government.  I think nearly everyone believes there is a moral obligation to not initiate force on others, but certain people do not follow that obligation at certain times, and I believe that in these cases a government is necessary to provide justice for those aggressed against.

I don't see why government is necessary even in these cases, and I don't see it for the simple reason that it would be bizarre to say that a government is just any government that protects people from agression, or provides protection under the law. After all, security firms do this, too. In fact, as an Englishman, I have the same rights of arrest as any policeman does, and can make a citizen's arrest. So it is clear that not just every institution that protects people's rights under the law is a government.

But, if being an institution that protects people's rights under the law is insufficient for said institution to be a government, it follows that the fact that we need such institutions does not prove that we need a government.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 14, 2009, 12:26:38 PM

Could you tell me what a government is, then, or what a state is? If I can get the services one "government" provides from another "government" without even moving house or anything, then I can't tell the difference, really, between that government and any private firm or club? Say the government service is, for instance, protection against crime or torts: What would make one of these things you call a "government" different from all the security firms competing out there? I mean, I can switch my security provider without moving house, and security firms provide law enforcement services, so what is the difference?

I think that when you get to that level, you are just not talking about governments anymore.


Well, that distinction we were both discussing above is coming somewhat through the lens of "right-anarchism" (e.g. an-cap) insofar as you (we) do not consider private security firms to be an actual government (by traditional understanding of the meaning of the word government), but rather it moves towards having all the necessary and sufficient characteristics to be considered a private entities.   

I will point out, however, that many left-anarchists (I'll generalize and call them the commie kind) fervently reject that idea that private companies are not a government.  They consider private companies to be a de facto government, even if they may not be a de jure government per se' (it's the old, "capitalism is a hierarchy" debate).


We could probably debate the etymology of the word "government," and if we did that... I think the left-anarchists would end up losing that argument... but in any case, I think my point to FreeAgent had less to do with defining government in it's traditional etymological sense, per se... and more to do with simply point out that a "government-like" entity (whether we call it that, or not) can be had for our benefit, without doing many of the things a government traditionally does... and I don't think that even "pragmatic minarchists" ought to object to us moving in that direction, even if it is only done in a piecemeal fashion.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 14, 2009, 12:57:26 PM

Could you tell me what a government is, then, or what a state is? If I can get the services one "government" provides from another "government" without even moving house or anything, then I can't tell the difference, really, between that government and any private firm or club? Say the government service is, for instance, protection against crime or torts: What would make one of these things you call a "government" different from all the security firms competing out there? I mean, I can switch my security provider without moving house, and security firms provide law enforcement services, so what is the difference?

I think that when you get to that level, you are just not talking about governments anymore.


Well, that distinction we were both discussing above is coming somewhat through the lens of "right-anarchism" (e.g. an-cap) insofar as you (we) do not consider private security firms to be an actual government (by traditional understanding of the meaning of the word government), but rather it moves towards having all the necessary and sufficient characteristics to be considered a private entities.   

I will point out, however, that many left-anarchists (I'll generalize and call them the commie kind) fervently reject that idea that private companies are not a government.  They consider private companies to be a de facto government, even if they may not be a de jure government per se' (it's the old, "capitalism is a hierarchy" debate).

Thats true, because they seem to regard any hierarchy as a government. However, private protection agencies are different from this again, since the protection agency and ther person they are protecting and the person they are protecting against are not all part of one organisation with it hierarchy. So, worker's co-ops and non-hierarchical firms could supply police protection.

Quote
We could probably debate the etymology of the word "government," and if we did that... I think the left-anarchists would end up losing that argument... but in any case, I think my point to FreeAgent had less to do with defining government in it's traditional etymological sense, per se... and more to do with simply point out that a "government-like" entity (whether we call it that, or not) can be had for our benefit, without doing many of the things a government traditionally does... and I don't think that even "pragmatic minarchists" ought to object to us moving in that direction, even if it is only done in a piecemeal fashion.

Thats true.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 14, 2009, 07:50:09 PM
Show me where Locke believes that in a state of nature people are "bound by certain rules", particularly in regard to violation of property rights. 

Chapter 2, "Of The State of Nature," section 6:

Quote
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions

Quote
Locke believed that government was necessary for the protection of property rights.

This proceeds too quickly: Locke though that government was necessary to protect property rights whilst also avoiding the "inconveniences" of leaving that protection up to the individual himself. But his argument about these inconveniences was fallacious: he said that people couldn't be trusted to judge in their own cases, and therefore require an independent and impartial third party to judge for them, and to reach a final resolution. However, two responses can be made to this:

1) The need for an independent and impartial third party does not imply that everybody needs the same independent and impartial third party to resolve their disputes. It is no more logically the case that because everybody needs an independent and impartial third party thate there is an indpendent and impartial third party everybody needs than it would be to claim that because everybody likes at least one TV program, there is at least one TV program everybody likes. You and I could have our dispute resolved by A, and yet Alex Free Market and free agent can have their dispute resolved by B.

2) The argument that there needs to be an independent and impartial third party to achieve a final verdict in a dispute is an argument against government, not for it: This is because one party in a dispute could be the government itself. But if the government itself is supposed to be the final authority, with a monopoly on ultimate resolution of disputes and use of legitimate force, then so long as government exists, there can be no independent and impartial third party in disputes with it.

On these issues, I reccomend you check out this informal talk by Roderick Long (http://www.mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3), which is transcribed here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html).

Quote
The "obligation" in Locke's world is enforced by government.  I think nearly everyone believes there is a moral obligation to not initiate force on others, but certain people do not follow that obligation at certain times, and I believe that in these cases a government is necessary to provide justice for those aggressed against.

I don't see why government is necessary even in these cases, and I don't see it for the simple reason that it would be bizarre to say that a government is just any government that protects people from agression, or provides protection under the law. After all, security firms do this, too. In fact, as an Englishman, I have the same rights of arrest as any policeman does, and can make a citizen's arrest. So it is clear that not just every institution that protects people's rights under the law is a government.

But, if being an institution that protects people's rights under the law is insufficient for said institution to be a government, it follows that the fact that we need such institutions does not prove that we need a government.

Yes, Locke believes that these things should exist.  He does not say or believe that they will exist or be respected in a state of nature--see "ought".  For enforcement, he turns to government.  I'm just puzzled as to why you bothered to bring him up as if he was in support of non-government or consistency with the NAP.  He clearly was not.

I'm with you on point #1.  I'm fine with resolving disputes in private courts.  In fact, it happens all the time.

I disagree with point #2.  It is possible to be impartial when you are the complaining party, and I would say it is necessary in the case of the murder of a person with no heirs and nobody with any legitimate claim to the person's estate, etc.

I would like to bring up a point #3: I believe that property rights of individuals should be enforced (pursuant to their wishes, if specified) regardless of whether or not a complaining party exists after a crime has been committed.  I see no way to guarantee this in a completely private system.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 15, 2009, 06:20:50 AM
Yes, Locke believes that these things should exist.  He does not say or believe that they will exist or be respected in a state of nature--see "ought".  For enforcement, he turns to government.  I'm just puzzled as to why you bothered to bring him up as if he was in support of non-government or consistency with the NAP.  He clearly was not.

I brought him up because he was somebody who thought that government was only justified if it rested on consent (and anarchists say it does not and cannot), and so is a useful example in explaining why we talk about consent being needed. You said that using violence against a criminal, say a murderer, who had not consented to being bound by our laws was an initiation of force, but the fact is that consent theorists, like Locke, and like we anarchists, think consent is necessary precisely because we think people are all bound by enforcible principle's of justice whether we like it or not, and it is consequent to this that there are things that, if we do them to other people without their consent, are in violation of those principles of justice. Likewise, there are things that, if we do them to or with various objects without consent or permission from specific others, we violate those principles of justice.

So, neither Locke, nor any libertarian, anarchists included, thinks you need permission from would-be murderers in order to use violence to prevent or punish that guy's actions.

Quote
I'm with you on point #1.  I'm fine with resolving disputes in private courts.  In fact, it happens all the time.

I disagree with point #2.  It is possible to be impartial when you are the complaining party, and I would say it is necessary in the case of the murder of a person with no heirs and nobody with any legitimate claim to the person's estate, etc.

It is possible, but it is surely far from probable, is it? I mean, if we said that in every murder case the person deciding whether or not a crime has been committed should be the accused, nobody would ever get any justice, would they? It would be possible for a guilty murderer to be impartial and decide, yes, they are guilty, but not likely, surely. Likewise, it is possible then when I accuse the government of a crime, it could impartially decide, yes it did commit a crime, but not likely. And I don't think you would want to leave it up to a person you suspected had wronged you to decide whether he had or not.

Quote
I would like to bring up a point #3: I believe that property rights of individuals should be enforced (pursuant to their wishes, if specified) regardless of whether or not a complaining party exists after a crime has been committed.  I see no way to guarantee this in a completely private system.

This relates to your point about being murdered without leaving an heir, or someone with a legitimate claim to the estate, right? Well, firstly, I can set up a contract with a protection agency that, in the event of my murder, it does its upmost to investigate the crime, and punish the wrongdoer. Firms that were paid for such services but failed to do so would lose reputation and tend to lose business to those that kept such contracts.

Secondly, this sounds like a good incentive to ensure I do have an heir or someone to take over the estate, or to leave my claims against wrongdoers to.

An alternative is that if somebody dies leaving no heir and with nobody having a legitimate claim to the estate, then that estate becomes effectively unowned property, and maybe homesteaded. And, since claims against wrongdoers are the property of their victim, that means that claim can be homesteaded and enforced by the wrongdoer.

Honestly, laws have been privately enforced for longer than they publicly enforced. I imagine that they found someway to resolve this issue.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 16, 2009, 11:10:16 AM
There are plenty of unidentified bodies found.  It's not a given that people will even know who you are after you're murdered.

If you don't need the victim's permission to aggress against a perceived (by you) aggressor, this could lead to the type of feud-like scenarios, confusion about who is aggressing against whom, etc.  Consolidating the right to legitimate use of non-self defense force with one agency makes much more sense to me.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: MacFall on May 16, 2009, 11:14:41 PM
That doesn't make sense at all. Private feuds are vastly preferable to a monopoly government, which drags everyone in the area it controls into the conflicts which it enters (or starts). And it's not like they'd be common anyway, as nobody's neighbors would put up with that sort of shit for very long. People who can't control their violent urges would be excluded and eliminated from a free society. On the other hand, they are exactly the sort who would go and work for a government where one exists.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 17, 2009, 06:59:09 AM
There are plenty of unidentified bodies found.  It's not a given that people will even know who you are after you're murdered.

So you are saying that if a body is found that is unidentifiable, people won't know who's protection agency to call to investigate the crime? But this seems like it would be an example of the latter solution I suggested: Since no heir for the claim, or possible claim, against a wrong doer can be found, the claim can be homesteaded by whoever discovered the body.

Quote
If you don't need the victim's permission to aggress against a perceived (by you) aggressor, this could lead to the type of feud-like scenarios,

Why?

Quote
confusion about who is aggressing against whom, etc.

Hence the need for courts to resolve the dispute.

This is really old hat, I would have thought that anybody who feels they know enough about market anarchism would also know that solutions to this "problem" have been offered long ago. For instance, the English minimal statist FW Read, objecting to the notion of voluntary taxation, said that it would result in several voluntary "states" competing in England with even members of the same household potentially belonging to different "states." Of course, this would be market anarchism, not really states, but Benjamin Tucker basically said, "yes; so what?" He wrote,

Quote
Mr Read would probably object that the "State" to which the invader belonged might regard his arrest as itself an invasion, and proceed against the "State" which arrested him. Anticipation of such conflicts would probably result exactly in those treaties between "States" which Mr. Read looks upon as so desirable, and even in the establishment of federal tribunals, as courts of last resort, by the co-operation of various "States," on the same voluntary principle in accordance with which the "States" themselves were organized.

This Tucker wrote in 1887, meaning your challenge was answered nearly 120 years before you made it! Your challenge was also made by Ayn Rand, of course, in 1963 - 76 years after Tucker answered it! Rand wrote,

Quote
A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” ...Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses. Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

Of course, every advocacy of market anarchism written ever since has addressed this objection. For example, David Friedman here (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html). The simple answer is that providers of force establish between one another contractual rules to decide when one may proceed against the clients of others, probably also including arbitration clauses to see when these contracts are in effect, so providing court cases. It would be in firm's rational self-interest to establish such arrangements so as to avoid the costs of conflict.

Quote
Consolidating the right to legitimate use of non-self defense force with one agency makes much more sense to me.

There is no such thing as legitimate non-self defense force. Any force that is not in self-defense is necessarily in offense, surely, and thus against somebody that is not doing something against anybody else.

Do you advocate world government? After all, you could go to your government with a claim that so-and-so has violated your rights, but so-and-so could be a citizen of another government, say the Canadian one, and could go to his and say that he has done nothing wrong but your government is trying to arrest him. It seems like the same problem you describe would exist when you have seperate national governments. But if having just one overarching government is the only solution, then surely you must be an advocate of world-government.

If not, though, then it seems hard to trace a consistency in your position: When the citizens of two nation states get in a dispute, one demanding his state proceed against the other citizen, the latter demanding that his state protects him from such, you say we don't need a monopoly organisation to resolve all such disputes, with the sole right to enforce the verdict... but then when we take out "citizen" and "nation state" and put "customer" and "protection agency" in their place, suddenly this ceases to be true?!
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 17, 2009, 12:43:47 PM
Homesteading is great and all, but I don't see it translating well into human bodies.  You could homestead a body with a bunch of debt.  Where's the incentive to homestead that?  Even if you homesteaded a body, found the murderer, and convicted him in one of your private courts or whatever, what legitimate claims to damages could you make?  The body stunk up your dumpster?  Since your justice system is based completely on reparations, it seems like you could easily get away with murder in scenarios like that.  The only penalty you might face would be similar to littering.

You could get feuds with situations where third parties get involved with justice because it isn't clear who started what.  There are also obligations of other third parties to protect the people who get involved, and it could spiral out of control.  I'm thinking of a situation like WWI alliances which led to war not just between a small number of countries, but between almost all countries in Europe and North America.

So your answer to the competing protection agency problem is to establish something like a United Nations of protection agencies?  Interesting, given how effective the UN is in real-life.

I don't see how you now go back to say that all non-self defense force is unjustified.  Protection agencies and government are, by definition, initiating force whenever they take action in defense of one of their clients.  A government and a protection agency would be no different in that way.

I'm fine with a one world government so long as it protects people's rights instead of infringing on them.  However, it seems like the way you're describing multiple national governments is much like the way you describe competing defense agencies.  As I've alluded to before, our defense agencies have the UN and all sorts of agreements between each other where they have agreed to get along.  We must be living in anarchtopia!  It seems that you recognize that fact as well:

Quote
When the citizens customers of two nation states defense agencies get in a dispute, one demanding his state agency proceed against the other citizen customer, the latter demanding that his state agency protects him from such, you say we don't need a monopoly organisation to resolve all such disputes, with the sole right to enforce the verdict... but then when we take out "citizen" "customer" and "nation state" "defense agency" and put "customer" citizen and "protection agency" nation state in their place, suddenly this ceases to be true?!

I don't know about you, but if this is anarchy, I am not a fan.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: MacFall on May 17, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
Holy gigantic blazing strawmen!

Quote
Since your justice system is based completely on reparations

No. It is based on defense. Reparation is simply retroactive defense. A criminal forfeits their rights to the extent that they have violated the rights of others. It would be completely just to take the life of a murderer, although it would be far more beneficial to force the murderer to work off a restitutive debt instead. This scenario also assumes that the victim had no heirs, because if he did, the murderer would owe them restitution, regardless of who found the body. Or his life, if they chose.

Quote
I'm thinking of a situation like WWI alliances which led to war not just between a small number of countries, but between almost all countries in Europe and North America.

Governments dragging their slave-populations into the fights they start happens with governments. Not in a scenario where a company can lose its customers in a matter of hours when the customers find out that the company is up to no good. And especially not when those customers would also have the unquestioned right to form their own defensive organizations, even to protect themselves against their former protectors.

Quote
So your answer to the competing protection agency problem is to establish something like a United Nations of protection agencies? 

No. You're the one saying that.

Quote
I don't see how you now go back to say that all non-self defense force is unjustified.

There are only two kinds of force: initiatory, and defense against initiatory force. If you're not defending yourself or another in your act of force, you are violating another person's rights. Period.

Quote
Protection agencies and government are, by definition, initiating force whenever they take action in defense of one of their clients.

Bullshit. The most basic rights theory asserts that rights can be delegated. Protection agencies act upon the rights delegated to them, by consent. Governments violate the rights of everyone in the area of their control simply by existing.

Quote
A government and a protection agency would be no different in that way.

Except for how they would be entirely different, which is in the very principle of how they operate.

Quote
I'm fine with a one world government so long as it protects people's rights instead of infringing on them.

LOL!

Also, it's funny how you continue to imagine that PDAs would behave just like governments do. Trying to draw analogies between governments and defense organizations is like trying to describe space travel as the operation of a lot of horse-carts.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 17, 2009, 02:34:19 PM
Homesteading is great and all, but I don't see it translating well into human bodies.

It is not homesteading the body, it is homesteading the claim against the wrongdoer, namely the murderer. In societies with private enforcement of law, like Medieval Iceland, claims for restitution were private property and could be sold, gifted, or bequeathed, so that those who were too weak or poorly acquainted to enforce it themselves could sell it to someone who wasn't. In a scenario such as you imagined, of somebody who was murdered without leaving an heir, and no proper heir could be found, this piece of property, the claim for restitution, becomes essentially unowned, since there is no legitimate owner. As unowned property, it can be homesteaded, then.

Quote
You could homestead a body with a bunch of debt.  Where's the incentive to homestead that?  Even if you homesteaded a body, found the murderer, and convicted him in one of your private courts or whatever, what legitimate claims to damages could you make?  The body stunk up your dumpster?  Since your justice system is based completely on reparations, it seems like you could easily get away with murder in scenarios like that.  The only penalty you might face would be similar to littering.

This is not relevant, since you misunderstood the point.

Quote
You could get feuds with situations where third parties get involved with justice because it isn't clear who started what.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Quote
There are also obligations of other third parties to protect the people who get involved, and it could spiral out of control.  I'm thinking of a situation like WWI alliances which led to war not just between a small number of countries, but between almost all countries in Europe and North America.

Yes, and... I can't see the relavance.

Quote
So your answer to the competing protection agency problem is to establish something like a United Nations of protection agencies?  Interesting, given how effective the UN is in real-life.

No, my answer is that protection agencies, in order to avoid the costs of conflicts, will contract the services of arbitors to resolve their disputes.

Quote
I don't see how you now go back to say that all non-self defense force is unjustified.  Protection agencies and government are, by definition, initiating force whenever they take action in defense of one of their clients.

No they are not, they are acting as the agents of their clients, using defensive force on his behalf. I can't see how defense is offense. You'll have to explain that.

Quote
I'm fine with a one world government so long as it protects people's rights instead of infringing on them.  However, it seems like the way you're describing multiple national governments is much like the way you describe competing defense agencies.  As I've alluded to before, our defense agencies have the UN and all sorts of agreements between each other where they have agreed to get along.  We must be living in anarchtopia!  It seems that you recognize that fact as well:

Quote
When the citizens customers of two nation states defense agencies get in a dispute, one demanding his state agency proceed against the other citizen customer, the latter demanding that his state agency protects him from such, you say we don't need a monopoly organisation to resolve all such disputes, with the sole right to enforce the verdict... but then when we take out "citizen" "customer" and "nation state" "defense agency" and put "customer" citizen and "protection agency" nation state in their place, suddenly this ceases to be true?!

I don't know about you, but if this is anarchy, I am not a fan.

Well, the obvious difference is that states can externalise their costs onto their citizens, so they have to worry less about the costs of conflicts with each other. Security firms, on the other hand, have no tax payers, and no conscripts.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 18, 2009, 11:05:38 PM
That doesn't make sense at all. Private feuds are vastly preferable to a monopoly government, which drags everyone in the area it controls into the conflicts which it enters (or starts). And it's not like they'd be common anyway, as nobody's neighbors would put up with that sort of shit for very long. People who can't control their violent urges would be excluded and eliminated from a free society. On the other hand, they are exactly the sort who would go and work for a government where one exists.

In a book of mine (a compilation of good wild west stories) there is a real picture of several bodies that were the result of a water feud. Had there been fear of official reprisal (a government that protected people from one another) that was fair in nature, I cant help but think that those deaths would not have happened.

Saying "they would work for a government anyways" isn't a good argument. How do you know that?

Lastly, a minimum of government is needed because people suck, and thus those who suck would band together to form large groups of terrible people who rob others a la The Seven Samurai. You could say that a government is just that, but if governments worked on the basis of a social contract theory, then a crappy result will not be inevitable.

Remember the three types of people in Team America: World Police?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: MacFall on May 18, 2009, 11:12:21 PM
social contract

My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 18, 2009, 11:13:07 PM
social contract

My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.

Why?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: MacFall on May 18, 2009, 11:13:56 PM
social contract

My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.

Why?

Seriously?  :?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 18, 2009, 11:21:02 PM
social contract

My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.

Why?

Seriously?  :?

Every belief must have a logical basis behind it. If you disapprove of the social contract theory, then you should explain why that is so.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: MacFall on May 18, 2009, 11:47:47 PM
Social contract theory has been debunked roundly by Spooner, Tucker, Mises, Rothbard, and many others. It's as silly a theory as the geocentric model of the solar system. But I'll boil down the argument for you:

A contract is a form of consent. There can be no such thing as a contract without the knowledge and consent of the contractor. You do not consent to anything by being born. There is no agreement between a person and the government, except that the person shall obey the government and respect their monopoly on legal violence, or ultimately die for their disobedience. That's not a contract; that's slavery.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 19, 2009, 05:23:22 AM
That doesn't make sense at all. Private feuds are vastly preferable to a monopoly government, which drags everyone in the area it controls into the conflicts which it enters (or starts). And it's not like they'd be common anyway, as nobody's neighbors would put up with that sort of shit for very long. People who can't control their violent urges would be excluded and eliminated from a free society. On the other hand, they are exactly the sort who would go and work for a government where one exists.

In a book of mine (a compilation of good wild west stories) there is a real picture of several bodies that were the result of a water feud. Had there been fear of official reprisal (a government that protected people from one another) that was fair in nature, I cant help but think that those deaths would not have happened.

Saying "they would work for a government anyways" isn't a good argument. How do you know that?

Murder rates in the worst cattle towns in the old west were better than in modern Washington DC. A classic essay on private provision of law and order in the old west here. (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 19, 2009, 05:25:03 AM
social contract

My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.

Why?

There is no social contract. Nobody signed anything. That simple.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: freeAgent on May 19, 2009, 08:18:19 AM
I'm not a social contract kind of guy, though it's an interesting concept.  In reality it means nothing.

That said, Mises was a minarchist :)
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 19, 2009, 09:40:25 AM
I'm not a social contract kind of guy, though it's an interesting concept.  In reality it means nothing.

That said, Mises was a minarchist :)

True, but he didn't pretend that government was somehow voluntary, based on some sort of contractual agreement.

Libertarian Papers should be publishing an article of mine soon about minarchy, and I make the point that some minarchists, those who think that government is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good, would think that guys like you had conceded too much ground to anarchists, because you have basically agreed with the anarchists that it government is evil, but not that it is unnecessary. People like Rand, or Tibor Machan, on the other hand would say that government is not a necessary evil, but a necessary good (in fcat, Rand would probably object at being told that something evil is necessary).

I suppose that means we can categorise people as those that think that government is necessary and not evil (Rand), those who think it is a necessary evil (the phrase comes from Paine), those who think it is an unnecessary good (can't think of an example), and those who think it is an unnecessary evil (most anarchists).
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: MacFall on May 19, 2009, 10:07:08 AM
I'm not a social contract kind of guy, though it's an interesting concept.  In reality it means nothing.

That said, Mises was a minarchist :)

That's not exactly true. He believed that some level of government was inevitable, but he also believed in the unlimited right of secession, including at the individual level. Jörg Guido Hülsmann (Mises' biographer) has said that Mises thought government should be run entirely at the neighborhood level, with the form and power structure constantly changing. Which it must do, with the constant threat of secession if they should make those in their jurisdiction unhappy.

That's not really minarchy, as there can be no archos when the people have the unquestioned right to secede.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Alex Free Market on May 19, 2009, 12:47:31 PM
Skimming this thread, while quite fascinating, is also quite disheartening.

It is sad to see people so wrapped up in the peddling of polycentric law bullshit, and those who oppose it, that it loses sight of the FAR MORE IMPORTANT issue.  That being, ethics and morality.


I used to be (and am still), an advocate and believer in the polycentric law model, but to see what is going on here, with the petty bickering over things which really are of no moral consequence at all, is sad.  The thread has simply devolved int utilitarian bickering.   The only people who can find any "meaning" in such conversations are self-admitted utilitarians or latent-utilitarians. 

When I see this kind of thing, I know the useful portion of the conversation has pretty much come to an end, and one or more parties should just end it right there... because the moral argument has simply ended at this point, and when that happens, I think the conversation need to be over, as it has devolved into an empty shell of a debate.



What happens when people of differing systems of belief (or different competing agencies) come into conflict?

If you think that kind of conflict is a "bad" thing, in a deontological sense, then I suggest whomever believes that needs to completely reevalute their entire understanding and belief in ethics and morality, because only a strict-pacifist or nihilist has any business asking that kind of question.

Competing systems of belief have existed since time immemorial, and that shall continue to be an objective fact until the end of time, and these conflicts exist throughout the universe.  There is nothing you can do about ending this conflict, nor is their anything inherently wrong with that fact to anyone other than a nihilist. 

Polycentric law is designed to minimize these conflicts, not eliminate them entirely.   Entirely eliminating conflict between competing systems of beliefs is a mathematical impossiblity.

If this means people will fight.  So be it.   If this means people will die.  So be it.  It is not a bad thing, and if you think death or harm and fighting over what you believe is morally right is a "bad thing," such people need to reject morality entirely, and go jump on the nihilist choo-choo train. 

Addendum - just going to add in a postscript comment.  Whether the phrase, "bad thing," in this last paragraph was the best choice or words, I don't know... it might have been best to simply say that conflict is inevitable when people disagree on ethical fundamentals (first principles,etc...).  Obviously fighting is [arguably] bad in the sense that few people actually want to fight or be killed, but I meant it is not a bad thing in the context of defending what you feel is right should not be considered a bad thing, else the whole point of ethics and morality becomes a moot point.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 19, 2009, 01:02:42 PM
Skimming this thread, while quite fascinating, is also quite disheartening.

It is sad to see people so wrapped up in the peddling of polycentric law bullshit, and those who oppose it, that it loses sight of the FAR MORE IMPORTANT issue.  That being, ethics and morality.

You are correct - the fundamental issue is that states are inherently unjust. They prevent people doing what they themselves do. What rights are violated when a private enforcer punishes a rights violation, or enforces a right, that are not also violated when the state punishes rights violations or protects rights? If the answer is "none," then preventing competition with the state is preventing people doing things that violate the rights of nobody.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 21, 2009, 08:13:51 PM
Social contract theory has been debunked roundly by Spooner, Tucker, Mises, Rothbard, and many others. It's as silly a theory as the geocentric model of the solar system. But I'll boil down the argument for you:

A contract is a form of consent. There can be no such thing as a contract without the knowledge and consent of the contractor. You do not consent to anything by being born. There is no agreement between a person and the government, except that the person shall obey the government and respect their monopoly on legal violence, or ultimately die for their disobedience. That's not a contract; that's slavery.

Thats a very good, and legitimate counter-argument against the social contract theory, but people do voluntarily live where they live. as long as municipalities are not forcefully homogenized, then a person could legitimately go to someplace else when he doesnt like the rules of the place he is in and into a place where he is more comfortable.

You could say its an unofficial form of consent to a not well defined set of rules.

In any case, I believe in governments at some level because I am pessimistic about human nature, and realize that throughout history transition governments and weak governments have tended to lend themselves to being taken over by shitty people. A minimum government only strong enough to sustain itself, and protect people from other people is ideal.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 21, 2009, 09:41:04 PM
Thats a very good, and legitimate counter-argument against the social contract theory, but people do voluntarily live where they live. as long as municipalities are not forcefully homogenized, then a person could legitimately go to someplace else when he doesnt like the rules of the place he is in and into a place where he is more comfortable.

So if I lived in a very isolated area - just me and 10 other households in the middle of fucking nowhere - could I get together with 9 of my neighbors, form a "government", and demand that the tenth neighbor follow whatever rules we set up? After all, they're not being forced to stay there, so if they don't like the rules they're free to leave.

You could say its an unofficial form of consent to a not well defined set of rules.

You could also say the same thing about chicks who drink a lot of booze and wear slutty clothing then get raped by asshole frat boys.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 22, 2009, 12:43:56 PM
Social contract theory has been debunked roundly by Spooner, Tucker, Mises, Rothbard, and many others. It's as silly a theory as the geocentric model of the solar system. But I'll boil down the argument for you:

A contract is a form of consent. There can be no such thing as a contract without the knowledge and consent of the contractor. You do not consent to anything by being born. There is no agreement between a person and the government, except that the person shall obey the government and respect their monopoly on legal violence, or ultimately die for their disobedience. That's not a contract; that's slavery.

Thats a very good, and legitimate counter-argument against the social contract theory, but people do voluntarily live where they live. as long as municipalities are not forcefully homogenized, then a person could legitimately go to someplace else when he doesnt like the rules of the place

How did they come to be the "rules of the place" and not just rules that certain people are bound buy? I mean, why link the rules to a particular place.

Further, this seems a little odd. Are you saying that, if the borders of the USA were redrawn a little further North, all those Canadians who failed to move out of that area have some how consented to be bound by the laws they are subject to?

If I movced into your neighbourhood and said "anybody who doesn't choose tho move across town is thereby choosing to live here, under my rules, would you really think that residents in your neighbourhood had voluntarily agreed to be subject to my rules?

If you were off to your friend's house and when you got there you found a stranger to both you and your friend standing at the edge of the border to your friend's property, and the stranger says "go in there, and you are agreeing to my rules," whould you consider entering really proof of a contractual agreement to bind yourself by the stranger's rules when you were on your friend's property?
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on May 24, 2009, 10:49:43 PM


How did they come to be the "rules of the place" and not just rules that certain people are bound buy? I mean, why link the rules to a particular place.

Further, this seems a little odd. Are you saying that, if the borders of the USA were redrawn a little further North, all those Canadians who failed to move out of that area have some how consented to be bound by the laws they are subject to?

If I movced into your neighbourhood and said "anybody who doesn't choose tho move across town is thereby choosing to live here, under my rules, would you really think that residents in your neighbourhood had voluntarily agreed to be subject to my rules?

If you were off to your friend's house and when you got there you found a stranger to both you and your friend standing at the edge of the border to your friend's property, and the stranger says "go in there, and you are agreeing to my rules," whould you consider entering really proof of a contractual agreement to bind yourself by the stranger's rules when you were on your friend's property?


Not moving is tacit consent. Keep in mind that I am just being the Dveils advocate here.
The rules cant be specific. They have to be about broad ranging types of behavior. Such as: living in civilized society means you cant cut off your neighbors head and drink his blood.

People already engage in voluntarily moving into places with social structures. Some people live in Housing Developments with a myriad of arcane rules that must be agreed to before the house is bought such as house color, and grass length. Some people live in communes, because they already agreed to the rules the  commune lives by. There is tacit agreement to many rules.

When you go into a business, dont you think you consent to the rules? You wouldnt smoke in a nonsmoking restaurant, or drink in a church. Those places have every right to set up their governing principles.
Title: Re: Is the NAP Necessary?
Post by: Richard Garner on May 25, 2009, 06:29:35 AM


How did they come to be the "rules of the place" and not just rules that certain people are bound buy? I mean, why link the rules to a particular place.

Further, this seems a little odd. Are you saying that, if the borders of the USA were redrawn a little further North, all those Canadians who failed to move out of that area have some how consented to be bound by the laws they are subject to?

If I movced into your neighbourhood and said "anybody who doesn't choose tho move across town is thereby choosing to live here, under my rules, would you really think that residents in your neighbourhood had voluntarily agreed to be subject to my rules?

If you were off to your friend's house and when you got there you found a stranger to both you and your friend standing at the edge of the border to your friend's property, and the stranger says "go in there, and you are agreeing to my rules," whould you consider entering really proof of a contractual agreement to bind yourself by the stranger's rules when you were on your friend's property?


Not moving is tacit consent. Keep in mind that I am just being the Dveils advocate here.[/quote[##No it isn't. Failure to leave your neighbourhood when a gang of thieves burgles people there does not indicate consent to be burgled. If I busted into your house late one night and said, whilst you live here, you abide by my rules, would you seriously agree, and say that your failure to leave was tacit consent to my rules, and therefore a contractual agreement? Of course not.

The argument from tacit consent is circular: It assumes that the state has a legitimate claim over its territory in order to use such an assumption in an argument aimed at showing that the state is legitimate. But if the conclusion is in doubt, then the truth of that premise cannot be accepted.

Quote
People already engage in voluntarily moving into places with social structures. Some people live in Housing Developments with a myriad of arcane rules that must be agreed to before the house is bought such as house color, and grass length. Some people live in communes, because they already agreed to the rules the  commune lives by. There is tacit agreement to many rules.

When you go into a business, dont you think you consent to the rules? You wouldnt smoke in a nonsmoking restaurant, or drink in a church. Those places have every right to set up their governing principles.


But these examples are not analogous: The rules of the restaurant a set by the owner of the restaurant. The rules of the church are set by the owner of the church. Are you saying that the government owns the entire country, and all land inn it? If not then how does your analogy hold? That is precisely my point in the above examples: You own your housem so staying there when some invader says "leave or abide by my rules" doesn't indicate a voluntary agreement to abide by his rules. You have already assume that the person giving the rules is the legitimate authority in that situation for tacit consent to be anywhere near binding. For instance, if you were at a board meeting and the chairman said, "right, that's all business concluded. We'll meet again the same time next Tuesday. Any objections?" pauses, then, "fine, see you all then," we can assume that you had tacitly consented to meet the same time next week. But if a caretake strolled into the meeting and said the same thing, you wouldn't. Why? Because it is not the caretaker's job to set the time and date of the next meeting. The chairman there is the legitimate authority.

So, as I said, you have to already presume that the state is the legitimate authority for tacit consent to work. But since the very issue it is meant to be resolving is whether or not the government is the legitimate authority, that renders the argument circular.