Aggression

Yes. "Voluntary Aggression" is a contradiction.

21 (77.8%)

No. Aggression has nothing to do with consent.

6 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[Zhwazi]

Arguing with a friend who thinks he's refuted the NAP/ZAP and replaced with a "CAP" - Chosen Aggression Principle. We argued for a while about it and he defines "aggression" in such a way that even if both parties consent to an interaction, it can be aggressive.

I thought everyone used my definition, where it had to be involuntary.

He says Friedman uses his definition.

What do you think it means?

[cerpntaxt]

So wait he's saying that if he asks you to hit him and you hit him, then that's aggression...?

[markuzick]

Arguing with a friend who thinks he's refuted the NAP/ZAP and replaced with a "CAP" - Chosen Aggression Principle. We argued for a while about it and he defines "aggression" in such a way that even if both parties consent to an interaction, it can be aggressive.

I thought everyone used my definition, where it had to be involuntary.

He says Friedman uses his definition.

What do you think it means?

It sounds like he may be confusing aggression with coercion.

[Zhwazi]

Yep. I just asked him exactly that question and he said yes.

[Zhwazi]

It sounds like he may be confusing aggression with coercion.

He says:

no i am not
coercion means involuntary
YOU are the one who is confusing them

[markuzick]

It sounds like he may be confusing aggression with coercion.

He says:

no i am not
coercion means involuntary
YOU are the one who is confusing them

I often misuse the words force and coercion(The use of, or threat of force) in the same way as your friend, because people usually understand what I mean, but this is a lazy practice that I intend to end. Just explain to him the difference between aggressive force and defensive force. If necessary, just show him the definitions.

[freeAgent]

Main Entry: ag·gres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'gre-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin aggression-, aggressio attack, from aggredi to attack, from ad- + gradi to step, go -- more at GRADE
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2 : the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

Seeing as how words such as "forceful", "unprovoked", and "hostile" are part of the definition of aggression, I don't think you can really argue that it doesn't imply non-consent.  If someone is whipping me because I ask, that person is not "forceful", "unprovoked", or even "hostile" because I want it done.

[ladyattis]

NAP/ZAP is conditional, so why make CAP? It seems he wants to preface all human interactions on aggression rather than having aggression as one state of human interaction.

-- Bridget

[voodoo]

NAP/ZAP is conditional, so why make CAP? It seems he wants to preface all human interactions on aggression rather than having aggression as one state of human interaction.

-- Bridget

There's something missing here, but, before I make more of an ass of myself, first explain to me how NAP/ZAP is conditional - that might put the missing piece in for me.

[ladyattis]

It doesn't apply non-rational agents. So it doesn't apply to Rocks, Dogs, really really stupid people [not retards, just assholes], and looters [aka the collectivists].

-- Bridget

[ladyattis]

More importantly, if a person says NAP/ZAP is wrong, then logically NAP/ZAP doesn't apply to them either. So if they try to harm you, kick the mother fucking shit out of them.

-- Bridget

[voodoo]

It doesn't apply non-rational agents. So it doesn't apply to Rocks, Dogs, really really stupid people [not retards, just assholes], and looters [aka the collectivists].

-- Bridget

Hunh.  Not the piece I was looking for.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that the majority of NAP/ZAP subscribers consider fair competition a healthy thing.  However, you can't have competition without aggression*.  Competition can be both voluntary (basketball game) or involuntary (short-sighted business), necessarily involves a degree of hostility, and usually involves physical action even if it doesn't involve physical contact.  So, it seems to me that NAP/ZAP is a clumsy reorganization of thought around private property rights (including self-ownership).  Why make it more complex when there is a perfectly good body of property rights theory out there that encompasses it and answers the application/consistency questions that NAP/ZAP struggles with?

* Although I couldn't find a definition of "aggression" that significantly differed from the one posted by FA, I sense a superlative bias in that definition - the definition of "aggressive" includes characterized by aggression, yet recognizes degrees of aggression from healthy to lethal.  Can anyone explain this?

[Bill Brasky]

Violence is a tool, it has a purpose.

The problem with it is the state uses it too easily, via people who have no real reason to use violence except that they are employed to do so under the "authority" bestowed upon them by a bureaucracy.

When you reduce it to private citizens who use it for self defense, I don't think you have to catagorize it as involuntary.  Thats mincing words.

You make a choice, and anyone who argues otherwise is pussyfooting around responsible decisionmaking.  You could run away, and by reacting with superior force to destroy your assailant, you are displaying cognitive reasoning.

[ladyattis]

Hunh.  Not the piece I was looking for.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that the majority of NAP/ZAP subscribers consider fair competition a healthy thing.  However, you can't have competition without aggression*.

To be honest, I don't agree that competition is aggression. Doing your best for yourself has no aggression involved. And the competition is the result of the pursuit is compared between more than one person. If you were the only person making Gnub-Gnubs, and you did them the best quality as possible, are you in competition? No.

Why make it more complex when there is a perfectly good body of property rights theory out there that encompasses it and answers the application/consistency questions that NAP/ZAP struggles with?

Because NAP/ZAP does not apply to non-rational agents. Do you think your pet dog has a right to NAP/ZAP? How about a flea?

-- Bridget

[voodoo]

To be honest, I don't agree that competition is aggression. Doing your best for yourself has no aggression involved. And the competition is the result of the pursuit is compared between more than one person. If you were the only person making Gnub-Gnubs, and you did them the best quality as possible, are you in competition? No.

I don't either.  Aggression mixes with intelligence, resourcefulness, and creativity in a winner; lack of aggression, however, most certainly is an earmark of a loser.  Again, I dispute a nuclear or superlative definition of aggression, so, if you must, substitute my use of aggression with aggressiveness.  To do the best for yourself you must be aggressive, unless you consider sitting on the couch collecting welfare as the best you can do for yourself.

Even a pure monopoly unicorn such as the one you described ought to comport himself as if he had competition; the best cure for a complacent monopoly is a complacent monopoly.

Because NAP/ZAP does not apply to non-rational agents. Do you think your pet dog has a right to NAP/ZAP? How about a flea?

-- Bridget

See, this is why I asked about the condition of NAP/ZAP.  I had a feeling that we weren't thinking about the same thing.  I was under the impression that NAP/ZAP is a moral responsibility, not a right.  A dog or flea doesn't have the responsibility of NAP/ZAP, but my dog (or my flea) is protected property under property rights theory.

I would like others' thoughts on this, because I believe you just talked me into rejecting NAP/ZAP.