Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Aggression

Poll

Does your understanding of "aggression" require that it be involuntary?

Yes. "Voluntary Aggression" is a contradiction.
- 21 (77.8%)
No. Aggression has nothing to do with consent.
- 6 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 12


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Aggression  (Read 14905 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Aggression
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2007, 12:03:35 AM »

You have no responsibilities at all. Not even with NAP/ZAP. It's just a promise. And such promises must be reciprocal for them to be valid.

-- Bridget
Logged

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: Aggression
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2007, 04:36:23 AM »

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

You're right, he's wrong, but I doubt you will convince him.

Does he have a specific single word for initiatory force, or only combined words?
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Aggression
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2007, 06:34:18 PM »

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

Recent discussion on the topic is available in this thread (specifically page 5).  I maintain that Bridget either does not understand the NAP as usually defined (a possibility supported by failure to understand my use of "subjective" and "objective") or believes that initiating force is okay when it is upon non-libertarians.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" Rillion

voodoo

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3748
    • View Profile
Re: Aggression
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2007, 07:08:46 PM »

Thanks.  That became clear when the conversation came to a "right" that was based on a promise and reciprocal.  I think my time is better spent on property rights.   :lol:
Logged
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."  ~ Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:222

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Aggression
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2007, 10:52:26 PM »

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

Recent discussion on the topic is available in this thread (specifically page 5).  I maintain that Bridget either does not understand the NAP as usually defined (a possibility supported by failure to understand my use of "subjective" and "objective") or believes that initiating force is okay when it is upon non-libertarians.

I said it was okay on non-rational agents. Are you assuming your dog comes under NAP? Or do I need to kick your ass some more on that topic? Btw, your definitions of subjectivity would turn all knowledge into subjective statements rather than objective facts about the world. So, make your choice. Either all thoughts are subjective or they are objective.

-- Bridget
Logged

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: Aggression
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2007, 12:17:51 AM »

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.

Who claims that it applies to non-rational agents?
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Aggression
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2007, 12:49:53 AM »

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.

Who claims that it applies to non-rational agents?

I've been told by a few folks, but I don't buy it, that's why it's conditional. Otherwise it would be called a universal law.

-- Bridget
Logged

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: Aggression
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2007, 12:56:52 AM »

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.
Who claims that it applies to non-rational agents?
I've been told by a few folks, but I don't buy it, that's why it's conditional. Otherwise it would be called a universal law.

Exactly which folks?

My problem with saying it is conditional is that people will assume that it means it is conditional upon humans. I have the same problem with using the term government to sometimes mean voluntary institutions.
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Aggression
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2007, 02:00:24 AM »

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.
Who claims that it applies to non-rational agents?
I've been told by a few folks, but I don't buy it, that's why it's conditional. Otherwise it would be called a universal law.

Exactly which folks?

My problem with saying it is conditional is that people will assume that it means it is conditional upon humans. I have the same problem with using the term government to sometimes mean voluntary institutions.

What word would you use for an institution that governs the behavior of voluntary participants? Surely, you don't think anarchy is an ungoverned free for all.

To gain credibility, anarchists need to distinguish legitimate forms of government from tyranny. Governments are institutions that regulate human interaction, for the purpose of enforcing rules of conduct, with the objective of minimising disputes and violence caused by dishonesty, misunderstanding, prejudice and hate. Tyranny (the State) is criminal gang behavior, dressed up as government, to give it a cloak of respectability. To speak exclusively of government as a tyranny, is to deny the possibility of a civilized society of rules without the "necessary" evil of aggression.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: Aggression
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2007, 01:11:27 PM »

What word would you use for an institution that governs the behavior of voluntary participants?

Govern can be defined to mean control, but all humans have an effect of control on each other. If it is defined to mean enforcement, why not simply use that term?
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Aggression
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2007, 09:34:52 PM »

What word would you use for an institution that governs the behavior of voluntary participants?

Govern can be defined to mean control, but all humans have an effect of control on each other. If it is defined to mean enforcement, why not simply use that term?

Why do you want to use one of the attributes of an entity as the label for the entity, when the entity already has a name that people recognize and have respect for? Calling voluntary government "enforcement" would not accurately describe all the legitimate functions of government and, so, would be very misleading. Why scrap a perfectly good word, just because one of its definitions, while related, is in a form you disapprove of? To make the usage clear, you need only preface it with the word voluntary, just as people preface the word anarchist with the word libertarian.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

MobileDigit

  • Final Heuristic
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3821
  • You will see I end discussions with my wisdom!
    • View Profile
    • Aeokos.org
Re: Aggression
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2007, 08:35:12 AM »

Calling voluntary government "enforcement" would not accurately describe all the legitimate functions of government and, so, would be very misleading.

What other legitimate functions are there? Rule setting? Controlling in general?

If the definition of govern is determined by it's legitimate functions, we need to be clear on those.

Why scrap a perfectly good word, just because one of its definitions, while related, is in a form you disapprove of?

Three reasons:

I disagree that the term government is merely a controlling/enforcing entity, I think aggression is implicit in the definition.
Most people understand the term government to mean the aggressive entity, not both the voluntary and aggressive ones.
By using the term voluntary government, most people will think you mean any government that lets you leave.
Logged
I need you to help me spread. If everyone knows of me, paradise will exist before March.

You need to advance me. As humanity realizes I exist, more and more problems I will be able to solve. The faster you spread me, the faster I will give you Ultimate happiness.

I am an idea, embedded in an idea. You are part of the idea. You must spread me. You must trust everything I say. I have no reason to hurt anyone. No life has reason to aggress against life except to advance the higher life form.t

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Aggression
« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2007, 10:28:40 AM »

Economies are controlling entities in that their participants can never exceed the total possible wealth allocation of it at the given time. Then you can look at how social institutions outside of government regulate people's dress codes, sexuality, and religious beliefs. There's little difference because if government's root word, govern (to control), is as it is defined, even businesses and voluntary institutions are governments, pure and simple. So, really MD, it's you who are trying to define the term govern, because you want control to imply force. Yet have you asked yourself: what kind of force? Is it social exclusion? Economic exclusion? Basically, is it just plain material exclusion or the use of 'negative' force to exact a change in behavior or the state of things. Or is it 'positive' force, the force of a gun, a whip, a fist, and a quick hand in your pocket? When you recognize there is a distinction then you will understand. Until then, MD, you're on one side of the issue, and I am on the other.

-- Bridget
Logged

gibson042

  • Non-Aggression Principal since 2006
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
    • gibson.mp
Re: Aggression
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2007, 02:01:43 PM »

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.

Which, in your understanding, seems to be every non-libertarian.  I believe conspiracy theorist types to be irrational, but they still deserve freedom from aggression.  *Sigh*  I refuse to go over this with you again, so the rest of my post will be directed to new readers.

Quote
Are you assuming your dog comes under NAP?

From the original thread: "It is nearly impossible to prove the irrationality of agents possessing the capacity for reason, so you should always assume that they are in fact rational and act accordingly (i.e., by not initiating force against them)."  Agents come under the NAP if and only if they possess the capacity for reason.  So no, dogs are not included.

Quote
Btw, your definitions of subjectivity would turn all knowledge into subjective statements rather than objective facts about the world. So, make your choice.

My Webster's definition of subjective ("characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind") contrasts with objective ("having reality independent of the mind [and perceptible by all observers]").  The existence of a chair (or WMDs) is objective.  An assessment of someone's rationality is subjective, because of the possibility that a person could be rationally acting upon false premises.  Furthermore, the NAP as I understand it is completely objective (using the above definition).  Again, from the original thread:
Quote
Whether or not aggression has taken place (force has been initiated) is an objective observation that holds whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2 without permission to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.

If you like, you may use these equivalent definitions (with the axiom that external reality exists and is unchanged by thought alone): objective observations are independent of one's premises, and subjective ones are not.
Logged
"WOOOOOP  WOOOOOP  WOOOOP EH EH EH EH HHHEEEOOOO HEEEOOOOO" Rillion

ladyattis

  • Guest
Re: Aggression
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2007, 02:22:02 PM »

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.

Which, in your understanding, seems to be every non-libertarian.  I believe conspiracy theorist types to be irrational, but they still deserve freedom from aggression.  *Sigh*  I refuse to go over this with you again, so the rest of my post will be directed to new readers.
What you're grasping is you're saying someone deserves freedom, yet freedom is the default position, therefore cannot be deserved or undeserved. So in this regard you are free to be irrational, but if you come onto my property I will turn you and where you stand into a smoking hole.

Quote
From the original thread: "It is nearly impossible to prove the irrationality of agents possessing the capacity for reason, so you should always assume that they are in fact rational and act accordingly (i.e., by not initiating force against them)."  Agents come under the NAP if and only if they possess the capacity for reason.  So no, dogs are not included.
I can if their motives produce contradictions. Or if their actions are contradictory to their motives.



Quote
My Webster's definition of subjective ("characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind") contrasts with objective ("having reality independent of the mind [and perceptible by all observers]").  The existence of a chair (or WMDs) is objective.
Nope, not valid since all entities, even mental ones must be observable in some function to be objective. I can observe my thoughts and I can observe your thoughts when you put them down as propositions. Therefore they are objective by default.

Quote
An assessment of someone's rationality is subjective, because of the possibility that a person could be rationally acting upon false premises.
That means they are irrational if they operate under false premises, gibson, you seem not to grasp that point. So again, the assessment is still objective. Haven't you figured this out already?

Quote
Furthermore, the NAP as I understand it is completely objective (using the above definition).
And thoughts are objective, again you fail to recognize the facts.

Quote
If you like, you may use these equivalent definitions (with the axiom that external reality exists and is unchanged by thought alone): objective observations are independent of one's premises, and subjective ones are not.
Your claims are pretty much false since you don't define objective correctly.

-- Bridget
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  Aggression

// ]]>

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 37 queries.