Is the Non Agression Principle a necessary component of Libertarian thought?
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.
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.
Bad example. If the government stops you from car-jacking, the government did not intiate force. You did.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.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.
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.
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.
1. You get to decide.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.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?
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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 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.
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"
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.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.htmlQuoteWho 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"
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 libertarianQuoteAlmost 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
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.
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!
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.
Have fun calling me a statist :) It's ok, I accept it.
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!
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 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!
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?
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.
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?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?
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?
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.
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...
Blah
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?
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
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?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...
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.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?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 you're ok with someone else compromising if it only results in...
your being looted to nothingness...
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....
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...
Right. But in my example, it wasn't.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.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...
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...
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...
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...
again...feel free...and even ENCOURAGED...to relate that some people...
are going to rightly refuse EVEN the theft of half their property...
are going to rightly refuse EVEN being raped only on odd days...
are going to rightly refuse EVEN being murdered only on even days...
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...
Why not just refuse, repel, destroy, and eliminate them BOTH?
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%.
Yeah, this guy get's refused, repelled, destroyed, and eliminated too...
You, on the other hand, would choose the guy stealing 100%, because there is nobody saying they will not steal anything.
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.
Hmmm....I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT OR TOLERATE EVEN A PERCENTAGE OF RAPE...Hmmm...
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.
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.
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!?!?!?!?!?!
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:QuoteBut 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 possessionsQuoteLocke 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).QuoteThe "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.
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.
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.
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.
Consolidating the right to legitimate use of non-self defense force with one agency makes much more sense to me.
When thecitizenscustomers of twonation statesdefense agencies get in a dispute, one demanding hisstateagency proceed against the othercitizencustomer, the latter demanding that hisstateagency 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?!
Since your justice system is based completely on reparations
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?
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.
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.
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:QuoteWhen thecitizenscustomers of twonation statesdefense agencies get in a dispute, one demanding hisstateagency proceed against the othercitizencustomer, the latter demanding that hisstateagency 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.
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.
social contract
social contract
My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.
social contract
My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.
Why?
social contract
My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.
Why?
Seriously? :?
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?
social contract
My cue to stop taking an argument seriously.
Why?
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 :)
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 :)
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.
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.
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?
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.QuotePeople 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.