The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Zhwazi on March 25, 2007, 04:57:47 AM
-
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?
-
So wait he's saying that if he asks you to hit him and you hit him, then that's aggression...?
-
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.
-
Yep. I just asked him exactly that question and he said yes.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggressive) includes characterized by aggression, yet recognizes degrees of aggression from healthy to lethal. Can anyone explain this?
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://wiki.freetalklive.com/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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11829.msg203750#msg203750) (specifically page 5 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11829.msg205629#msg205629)). 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.
-
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:
-
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 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11829.msg203750#msg203750) (specifically page 5 (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11829.msg205629#msg205629)). 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
-
I said it was okay on non-rational agents.
Who claims that it applies to non-rational agents?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.
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 (http://webster.com/) 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:
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.
-
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.
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.
My Webster's (http://webster.com/) 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.
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?
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.
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
-
I'll explain to you, gibson, the definition of objective....Again.
Object: any entity.
Objective: having the quality and/or quality of having properties that are exclusive to the referenced entity.
Example: The rubber ball is 5 ounces.
Analysis:
Object: Rubber ball.
Objective: is 5 ounces.
Another example: X is irrational.
Object: X
Objective: is irrational.
Lets dig deeper here on the part claimed to be objective here, because this one is not easily understood by you. How do we define irrational? Irrational tends to mean in contradiction/opposition/lacking-of reason. So, when someone says X is irrational, they are saying X is not reasoning or thinking reasonably well. Okay, now we got that part down, lets go to the next step, how does anyone know X is irrational? There are a number means to measure it such as observation of the actions taken by X, the responses X gives to questions, and/or the premises X gives for X's behavior(s). Under each possible means of measurement each one is objective since each means of measurement is exclusive for each property measured. More importantly, the measurement itself is invariant. You can't get another scale for irrationality that is radically different from another scale, not even in ordinal cases [example of this would be that metric and imperial are both correct despite having different ordinal scales].
So, gibson, what part of that don't you grasp?
-- Bridget
-
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.
Don't you get it? That is the non-aggression principle. All entities, whether rational or not, are free to do as they please until they aggress. There is no other condition!
My Webster's (http://webster.com/) 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.
By that definition, everything is objective. Making it useless. Didn't you try to criticize me for the exact same situation?
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?
I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another. Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) observations.
Your claims are pretty much false since you don't define objective correctly.
Take it up with MW. If you're so hung up on your fruity definition, then suggest a replacement term for me.
-
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.
Don't you get it? That is the non-aggression principle. All entities, whether rational or not, are free to do as they please until they aggress. There is no other condition!
Yet again it does not apply to irrational agents. Sorry, try again.
I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another.
Validity in this case is not useful. I need soundness as well, which your assessment does not pass.
Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) observations.
No it would still be the same, but it would exclude irrational agents such as thugs, the immoral, and etc. "Mind and Force are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." - Ayn Rand.
Take it up with MW. If you're so hung up on your fruity definition, then suggest a replacement term for me.
The fact you take whatever a dictionary tells you proves to me you are unwilling to listen. And as such, this argument is over. Remember, dictionaries don't define the word, they just collect the definitions for them.
-- Bridget
-
Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) observations.
No it would still be the same, but it would exclude irrational agents such as thugs, the immoral, and etc. "Mind and Force are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." - Ayn Rand.
Question: how are you to know someone is a "thug" until they aggress? If you wait until after the fact, then you are using the NAP as I describe it. If you strike pre-emptively, then you are aggressing, and without an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) basis!
Take it up with MW. If you're so hung up on your fruity definition, then suggest a replacement term for me.
The fact you take whatever a dictionary tells you proves to me you are unwilling to listen. And as such, this argument is over. Remember, dictionaries don't define the word, they just collect the definitions for them.
I have consistently used the term "objective" to represent the concept of "having reality independent of the mind [and perceptible by all observers]". That the dictionary includes just such a definition means my use was acceptable. Yet you have consistently ignored it, pretending instead that the term meant what you wanted it to—even when I explicitly specified otherwise—and repeatedly claiming that my definition is "incorrect". Its appearance in the dictionary proves you wrong, but your claim ignores the fact that what's important is the concept (bolded above for your elucidation). Now you are refusing to provide a substitute term; apparently it is so damaging to your worldview that you have to ignore it.
You're right about one thing, though: this argument is over.
-
Question: how are you to know someone is a "thug" until they aggress? If you wait until after the fact, then you are using the NAP as I describe it. If you strike pre-emptively, then you are aggressing, and without an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) basis!
Not if the person has a reputation. Or if the person is in the act of violence. In either case, the person gets no chance to try with me. And the definition of objective you use is faulty, I explained that before to you, but you seem to ignore this.
I have consistently used the term "objective" to represent the concept of "having reality independent of the mind [and perceptible by all observers]". That the dictionary includes just such a definition means my use was acceptable.
No it wasn't, it was the wrong definition for objective.
Yet you have consistently ignored it, pretending instead that the term meant what you wanted it to—even when I explicitly specified otherwise—and repeatedly claiming that my definition is "incorrect". Its appearance in the dictionary proves you wrong, but your claim ignores the fact that what's important is the concept (bolded above for your elucidation). Now you are refusing to provide a substitute term; apparently it is so damaging to your worldview that you have to ignore it.
Wrong again, by the fact that every definition is up for debate, period and end of story. In this case, the definition of objective as you use it is faulty because it implies that mental states are not objects in themselves.
So, again, I made a post about this that was independent of the original argument, which pointed out clearly that the definition of OBJECTIVE is not something outside the mind rather it is THE STATE OF ENTITIES WHICH CAN BE ISOLATED AND MEASURED. If you cannot grasp this fact, then fuck off. If we use your definition of objective, everything from atoms and molecules, to mental states and sense perception are all subjective, yet the facts are in opposition to this. Pleading to a dictionary at this point is...W-R-O-N-G by virtue of the fact that the given definition produces a CONTRADICTION. Q.FUCKING.E.FUCKING.D. Got it? Or do you need some more intellectual throw down?
-- Bridget served the idiot gibson who thinks everyone's minds are subjective. :-P
-
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.
There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.
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.
It's only implicit in the definition for the illegitimate form, namely, the State.
Most people understand the term government to mean the aggressive entity, not both the voluntary and aggressive ones.
Most people understand the concept of private government, but believe, that in the sphere of political organization, that it refers to the aggressive entity called the State. This is perfectly understandable, as the state is the ubiquitous type of political organization. If there where some true anarchic societies in the world, then people might start making the distinction between voluntary and aggressive governments, but how can we expect this to happen when the State is universally seen as the paradigm for political organization? We are, in effect, enslaved by a prejudicial misconception that is built into our common use of language. A society needs to be governed or it will collapse into chaos. This is why the public will never accept anarchy, until they understand the possibility and the virtue of voluntary government as a political (societal) organization.
By using the term voluntary government, most people will think you mean any government that lets you leave.
Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?
-
Your avatar is pretty, Keti.
-
Thanks. It took a little while in flash.
-
There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.
How are you distinguishing a legitimate function of government from an illegitimate one?
Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?
They mean a government that lets you leave it's jurisdiction, not one that you can decide not to pay and still keep your property.
-
There is arbitration and dispute resolution. There is protection and defence. There are rating systems that accredit individuals and organizations for credit worthiness, ethical conduct and professional standards of competence and for the safety quality and efficacy of the products and services that they sell. In addition, all businesses and organizations also have internal government whose primary purpose is to create goods or services for the purpose of earning profit or achieving some desired social goal.
How are you distinguishing a legitimate function of government from an illegitimate one?
Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitamate.
Isn't that essentially what it is, to be able to choose to enter into and out of service contracts with competing service suppliers of various governmental services?
They mean a government that lets you leave it's jurisdiction, not one that you can decide not to pay and still keep your property.
That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.
Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.
-
Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitamate.
But how did you determine it was a function of government?
I want to understand your rationale for assigning particular functions to the definition of govern.
That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.
Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.
They believe that the people have chosen to have a government, and thus it has a valid claim to your wealth, unless you are not using any services it provides.
-
Any activity that is non-aggressive is legitimate.
But how did you determine it was a function of government?
I want to understand your rationale for assigning particular functions to the definition of govern.
All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments. Those organizations whose functions are of the type that are conventionally thought of as being the exclusive purview of the State are the ones that, until this artificial distinction is dismissed as an irrational prejudice, will need the preface voluntary when referring to them as governments.
That implied definition for the word voluntary would lead to such absurdities as a gang leader claiming that after invading and occupying your home, robbing , rapping and torturing your family members, it was all perfectly voluntary, because he then allowed you leave and live somewhere else, instead of holding you and your family as slaves.
Anyone with such a silly idea simply needs to have the definition of voluntary spelled out.
They believe that the people have chosen to have a government, and thus it has a valid claim to your wealth, unless you are not using any services it provides.
They, especially, need to be taught what the word voluntary means as well as the moral necessity for human interaction to be on a consensual (voluntary) basis.
-
All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments.
But why are you defining them to be governments?
-
All organizations, or at least the management of them, are governments.
But why are you defining them to be governments?
That's the general definition."Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." The political definition is but a specific instance of this more general definition.
-
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.
[I'm sorry that I'm coming late to this, but I was involved in a different discussion on this same thread.]
You are confusing the word aggression with the word competition.
Edit: Oops, I see that was addressed in the next post.
-
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.
Are you writing about this word? :?
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ag·gres·sion /əˈgrɛʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-gresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2. any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3. the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4. Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.
-
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.
That's a good start to describing aggression, I think it's not complete. What if those two conditions both are true, but the actions of E2 are either accidental, or they mistakenly believed they had a right to those actions? I would write condition #1 this way:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
-
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?
I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another. Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) observations.
Why did you concede that? Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational. Only the person who, when shown his error, rejects logic or evidence is irrational. If he's unable to grasp them, then he's non-rational.
-
That's the general definition. "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." The political definition is but a specific instance of this more general definition.
I suppose we fundamentally disagree then.
Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational.
Is a person that lies once a liar?
-
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.
That's a good start to describing aggression, I think it's not complete. What if those two conditions both are true, but the actions of E2 are either accidental, or they mistakenly believed they had a right to those actions? I would write condition #1 this way:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression. If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it. If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs. If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar). Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).
That being said, I do feel that retribution (anything beyond simple restitution) is uncalled for in aggression excluded from your definition. Actually, in some cases even full restitution is not necessary (in the last example, noticing the error after a minute or two and returning the vehicle would probably be enough; one need not also leave money for the consumed fuel). Intent, while not used in assessing aggression, should be paramount in determining the response to it.
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?
I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another. Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) observations.
(quote tree corrected)
Why did you concede that? Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational. Only the person who, when shown his error, rejects logic or evidence is irrational. If he's unable to grasp them, then he's non-rational.
To be honest, I wrestled with the original statement before committing to it. "Irrational" is really being used in two different ways here (at least by me), one to describe people and one to describe actions. Regarding people, you are absolutely correct. Regarding actions, I conceded the point that a behavior is irrational if it is based on flawed premises. But I do not have a great deal of confidence in that, and could be swayed back by a good argument.
-
That's the general definition. "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." The political definition is but a specific instance of this more general definition.
I suppose we fundamentally disagree then.
The definition I quoted is from the American Heritage Dictionary.
When you speak of the government of a business, are you speaking of a State?
When you speak of self government, are you speaking of a State?
Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational.
Is a person that lies once a liar?
Did I write anything about liars?
-
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.
That's a good start to describing aggression, I think it's not complete. What if those two conditions both are true, but the actions of E2 are either accidental, or they mistakenly believed they had a right to those actions? I would write condition #1 this way:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression. If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it. If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs. If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar). Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).
Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.
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?
I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another. Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) observations.
(quote tree corrected)
Why did you concede that? Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational. Only the person who, when shown his error, rejects logic or evidence is irrational. If he's unable to grasp them, then he's non-rational.
To be honest, I wrestled with the original statement before committing to it. "Irrational" is really being used in two different ways here (at least by me), one to describe people and one to describe actions. Regarding people, you are absolutely correct. Regarding actions, I conceded the point that a behavior is irrational if it is based on flawed premises. But I do not have a great deal of confidence in that, and could be swayed back by a good argument.
Behavior is rational if it is logically based upon one's premises. Behavior, even if it is correct, if it is not in logical accordance with one's premises, (doing the right thing for the wrong reasons) is not rational.
-
It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression. If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it. If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs. If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar). Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).
Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.
Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression". I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why). My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me. What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?
Behavior is rational if it is logically based upon one's premises. Behavior, even if it is correct, if it is not in logical accordance with one's premises, (doing the right thing for the wrong reasons) is not rational.
That's what I was going for in my original post, but premises are not inborn, they are developed by processing sensory input. Someone who develops a bad premise and then acts on it may not be acting irrationally, but they're doing something damn close to it.
-
It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression. If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it. If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs. If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar). Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).
Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.
Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression". I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why). My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me. What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?
I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.
Behavior is rational if it is logically based upon one's premises. Behavior, even if it is correct, if it is not in logical accordance with one's premises, (doing the right thing for the wrong reasons) is not rational.
That's what I was going for in my original post, but premises are not inborn, they are developed by processing sensory input. Someone who develops a bad premise and then acts on it may not be acting irrationally, but they're doing something damn close to it.
The best anyone can do is to act logically within the limits of their knowledge. There's nothing irrational about it, as long as their beliefs are not dogmatic (That is, subject to further knowledge and improved understanding.).
-
Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression". I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why). My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me. What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?
I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.
Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration. How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?
By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration. Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more. Why don't you want to use it as proposed?
The best anyone can do is to act logically within the limits of their knowledge. There's nothing irrational about it, as long as their beliefs are not dogmatic (That is, subject to further knowledge and improved understanding.).
I was not-so-subtly alluding to dogma as "bad premises". I think we agree on this issue.
-
Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression". I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why). My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me. What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?
I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.
Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration. How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?
1. If you refuse to pay for what you take, then you are a thief. Stealing is a form of aggression.
2. If I claim that you are in violation of my rights, I must give objective evidence and reasons to back my claim. You must either stop the claimed violation and pay restitution, or demonstrate how my claim is invalid. If you refuse to defend you actions, then I can only assume that you cannot do so. You have then lost your case by default, and since you still continue to violate my rights, then you are an aggressor.
By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration. Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more. Why don't you want to use it as proposed?
Using force against someone who has not been proven guilty of aggression is not even nearly the same, nor would it produce the same result, as making a claim against him, deciding who's right, and settling your differences with him in a civilized manner. It would be tantamount to aggression.
-
I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.
Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration. How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?
1. If you refuse to pay for what you take, then you are a thief. Stealing is a form of aggression.
2. If I claim that you are in violation of my rights, I must give objective evidence and reasons to back my claim. You must either stop the claimed violation and pay restitution, or demonstrate how my claim is invalid. If you refuse to defend you actions, then I can only assume that you cannot do so. You have then lost your case by default, and since you still continue to violate my rights, then you are an aggressor.
I think you misunderstand. My two-part definition of "aggression" includes accidents (they directly affect, without permission, the body or property of another entity that has not previously done the same to them). Your modified definition requires intent. I am asking you to show me how my refusal is aggression, given your modified definition, when the initial damage is not.
By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration. Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more. Why don't you want to use it as proposed?
Using force against someone who has not been proven guilty of aggression is not even nearly the same, nor would it produce the same result, as making a claim against him, deciding who's right, and settling your differences with him in a civilized manner. It would be tantamount to aggression.
Shooting a burglar is using force without proof of aggression. Catching a shoplifter and taking back the stolen goods is using force without proof of aggression. Ordering someone off my farm is using force without proof of aggression. Compelling someone to either pay retribution or submit to arbitration is using force without proof of aggression. You agree that force can be used without prior arbitration, you just think it should be limited in degree and nature (so that differences can be settled "in a civilized manner"). I agree with you; from my original response: "Intent, while not used in assessing aggression, should be paramount in determining the response to it.".
Consider it a secondary principle that in responding to aggression (violation/infringement/etc.), no more force should be used than the minimum necessary to rectify it. There, I now subscribe to the non-infringement, minimal response principle. All hail the NIMRP!
-
I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.
Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration. How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?
1. If you refuse to pay for what you take, then you are a thief. Stealing is a form of aggression.
2. If I claim that you are in violation of my rights, I must give objective evidence and reasons to back my claim. You must either stop the claimed violation and pay restitution, or demonstrate how my claim is invalid. If you refuse to defend you actions, then I can only assume that you cannot do so. You have then lost your case by default, and since you still continue to violate my rights, then you are an aggressor.
I think you misunderstand. My two-part definition of "aggression" includes accidents (they directly affect, without permission, the body or property of another entity that has not previously done the same to them). Your modified definition requires intent. I am asking you to show me how my refusal is aggression, given your modified definition, when the initial damage is not.
I don't believe your definition of aggression is an acceptable one, as I previously pointed out:
Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.
You can create a new definition, if you want to, but, in this case, I don't see any value in doing that. In fact, I believe that your idiosyncratic definition has led to confusion, on your part, about when you have the right to use force against someone. I will elaborate on this in the next part of this post.
By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration. Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more. Why don't you want to use it as proposed?
Using force against someone who has not been proven guilty of aggression is not even nearly the same, nor would it produce the same result, as making a claim against him, deciding who's right, and settling your differences with him in a civilized manner. It would be tantamount to aggression.
Shooting a burglar is using force without proof of aggression. Catching a shoplifter and taking back the stolen goods is using force without proof of aggression. Ordering someone off my farm is using force without proof of aggression. Compelling someone to either pay retribution or submit to arbitration is using force without proof of aggression. You agree that force can be used without prior arbitration, you just think it should be limited in degree and nature (so that differences can be settled "in a civilized manner"). I agree with you; from my original response: "Intent, while not used in assessing aggression, should be paramount in determining the response to it.".
You have the right to use force in self defence, but only if you can reasonably consider yourself to be in imminent danger.
1. If you shoot a burglar, you had better be sure it's really a burglar and not a lost or confused person or a small child.
2. You may not use force against a suspected shoplifter, or any other suspected thief. If you believe they have taken something, with the intention of not paying for it, you may ask them if they are going to purchase the item/s and, if not, to remember to put them back before they leave. Only if they deny that they have the item/s, or attempt to run, may you arrest them, or have them arrested and if you're proven to be wrong in doing so, they may sue you for false arrest. In many cases, it would be best to simply ban them from entering your store.
3. You may only ask, not force, someone to leave particular parts of your farm where you have clear reason to believe that their presence is causing harm to your property or interfering with with your ability to use your property, your property being the farming operation, not the land itself.
If there is a disagreement over his right to be there, you can discuss your reasons with each other. Failing to find agreement, you will both agree to arbitration. Only if he refuses to defend his actions, you can then assume that he cannot do so. He has then lost his case by default, and if he still continues to violate your rights, then he should be considered an aggressor.
4. You may not compel someone to either pay retribution or submit to arbitration, without proof of aggression. First you must present him with a claim and if he disagrees with your claim, you can explain your reasons to each other. One of you may admit the other is correct, or you may agree that you both have some valid claims and then come to a settlement. If you cannot come to some agreement then you will both agree to arbitration. Only if he refuses to defend his actions, you can then assume that he cannot do so. He has then lost his case by default, and if he still continues to violate your rights, then he should be considered an aggressor.
Points 1 through 4 are based on two principles:
You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.
You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.
Consider it a secondary principle that in responding to aggression (violation/infringement/etc.), no more force should be used than the minimum necessary to rectify it. There, I now subscribe to the non-infringement, minimal response principle. All hail the NIMRP!
I can agree with that statement, but only on the condition that the (violation/infringement/etc.) is really aggression (in the form of an attack).
-
Points 1 through 4 are based on two principles:
You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.
You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.
See, here's the crux of it. I'll repost our competing definitions of aggression for convenience, referring to mine as A_g and yours as A_m.
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.
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
Let's say my car slides on a patch of ice and hits someone else's (a nice brand new Porsche, so coming after me is worth their while). This is A_g but not A_m. The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse. They ask for arbitration, and I refuse. This is still A_g but not A_m. They get a default judgment against me, and I still refuse to pay them. Still A_g but not A_m. Eventually, they either come after me directly or have men with guns do it. Now things get interesting. The assault on me is not A_g because of point 2, nor is it A_m because of your "belief in [the] right to do so" modification. So we have violence being "rightfully" used without any instance of aggression. Seems to me that your definition is the idiosyncratic one.
Now that I think of it, allowing force if it comes with a "belief in [the] right to do so" is a pretty big loophole. A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person. A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else. Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world. None of these are A_m.
I find it hard to debate with you on this because your answers are right, and in each example you describe the minimal response (which almost always begins with talking things out) to what I would call aggression. We agree completely on how disputes should be handled. But I think your definition is fundamentally flawed, and I am not comfortable with its gray area where force is neither aggression nor a response to it. Especially because you seem to have not realized its existence. After thinking about it for a while, I am confident that my system and yours really do produce identical results. But between them, the NIMRP is more clear and precise.
-
Points 1 through 4 are based on two principles:
You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.
You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.
See, here's the crux of it. I'll repost our competing definitions of aggression for convenience, referring to mine as A_g and yours as A_m.
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.
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.
Let's say my car slides on a patch of ice and hits someone else's (a nice brand new Porsche, so coming after me is worth their while). This is A_g but not A_m.
So far correct, but you must admit that your definition isn't used by anyone else,( check the dictionary ) so you need a good reason to make up a new one.
The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse. They ask for arbitration, and I refuse. This is still A_g but not A_m.
No, this is also A_M. You are responsible for your actions, even if they are not aggressive. Evading responsibility for your actions is tantamount to theft. They can skip the arbitration, as you have defaulted on your right to enter into it, by refusing it. They can now force restitution.
Now that I think of it, allowing force if it comes with a "belief in [the] right to do so" is a pretty big loophole. A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person. A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else. Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world. None of these are A_m.
These are all A_M. In fact, that is my whole premise. Everything about A_M is based on these Two principles:
You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.
You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.
It's A_G that neglects this and leads to the kind of problems that you brought up.
I find it hard to debate with you on this because your answers are right, and in each example you describe the minimal response (which almost always begins with talking things out) to what I would call aggression. We agree completely on how disputes should be handled. But I think your definition is fundamentally flawed, and I am not comfortable with its gray area where force is neither aggression nor a response to it. Especially because you seem to have not realized its existence. After thinking about it for a while, I am confident that my system and yours really do produce identical results. But between them, the NIMRP is more clear and precise.
In an accident or in a misunderstanding, although there may ( as in a crash ) or may not be violent physical forces involved, there is no use of force and hence, no aggression.
NIMRP can be added on to both your system or mine. In my system, it adds an extra layer of courtesy. In your system, it's an absolute necessity, in order to minimise the damage done by a very confusing definition of aggression.
-
So far correct, but you must admit that your definition isn't used by anyone else,( check the dictionary ) so you need a good reason to make up a new one.
It is an explicit refinement of standing definitions. I believe that many people already use it implicitly. My reason for the clarification is to ensure an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) basis.
The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse. They ask for arbitration, and I refuse. This is still A_g but not A_m.
No, this is also A_M. You are responsible for your actions, even if they are not aggressive. Evading responsibility for your actions is tantamount to theft. They can skip the arbitration, as you have defaulted on your right to enter into it, by refusing it. They can now force restitution.
You defined aggression (A_m) to have taken place 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, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right 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.
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m. Do the same for these examples:
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person. A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else. Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.
In an accident or in a misunderstanding, although there may ( as in a crash ) or may not be violent physical forces involved, there is no use of force and hence, no aggression.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution. I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental. They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.
NIMRP can be added on to both your system or mine. In my system, it adds an extra layer of courtesy. In your system, it's an absolute necessity, in order to minimise the damage done by a very confusing definition of aggression.
What's confusing about taking responsibility for your actions? When someone does damage, whether accidental or not, it places an onus on them to undo the harm. Minimal response gives them the explicit chance to voluntarily make things right, which everyone deserves.
-
So far correct, but you must admit that your definition isn't used by anyone else,( check the dictionary ) so you need a good reason to make up a new one.
It is an explicit refinement of standing definitions. I believe that many people already use it implicitly. My reason for the clarification is to ensure an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b (http://webster.com/dictionary/objective+)) basis.
Here's your M.W. definition:
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
This is clearly A_M, not A_G.
The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse. They ask for arbitration, and I refuse. This is still A_g but not A_m.
No, this is also A_M. You are responsible for your actions, even if they are not aggressive. Evading responsibility for your actions is tantamount to theft. They can skip the arbitration, as you have defaulted on your right to enter into it, by refusing it. They can now force restitution.
You defined aggression (A_m) to have taken place 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, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right 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.
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.
1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.
2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.
3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.
4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )
5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.
Do the same for these examples:
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person. A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else. Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.
These are examples of someone intentionally attacking other people. Those other people are innocent until proven guilty, so the attackers cannot think they have a right to do so, unless they believe they have a "right to aggression", but the right I'm referring to in the definition must be a natural right, for a right to aggression would make the word aggression meaningless.
In an accident or in a misunderstanding, although there may ( as in a crash ) or may not be violent physical forces involved, there is no use of force and hence, no aggression.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution. I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental. They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.
I was just trying to explain why the only conceivable reason I could think of for calling an accident or honest misunderstanding an aggression was not valid.
NIMRP can be added on to both your system or mine. In my system, it adds an extra layer of courtesy. In your system, it's an absolute necessity, in order to minimise the damage done by a very confusing definition of aggression.
What's confusing about taking responsibility for your actions?
Your actions do not need to be aggressive for you to be responsible for them. Malfeasance is not a requirement for liability.
When someone does damage, whether accidental or not, it places an onus on them to undo the harm. Minimal response gives them the explicit chance to voluntarily make things right, which everyone deserves.
It isn't right or fair to treat someone who creates a liability through an honest mistake or accident the same way as a criminal, which your system would do, thereby making everyone a criminal or no-one a criminal.
BTW: I know you're a very intelligent person, but isn't time to throw in the towel on your definition?
-
This will hopefully be my last post on the topic. Our discussion has grown quite fragmented, so I will try to minimize quoting.
First off, Merriam-Webster broke this camel's back. "Aggression" is obviously the wrong word for what I'm trying to say. So henceforth, my definition will apply instead to "infringement". I'd love to rescind the definition entirely, as you suggest, but I have yet to see a better replacement. The best argument you have against it is that it treats people who make mistakes the same way as criminals, but the minimal response patch fixes that by offering everyone—including criminals—the same opportunity to rectify things. The very solution you propose.
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.
1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.
2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.
3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.
4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )
5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.
You're still not understanding my request. Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person. A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else. Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.
These are examples of someone intentionally attacking other people. Those other people are innocent until proven guilty, so the attackers cannot think they have a right to do so, unless they believe they have a "right to aggression", but the right I'm referring to in the definition must be a natural right, for a right to aggression would make the word aggression meaningless.
Yet another modification to your definition. It's far too convoluted for my taste. Also, if I get arrested because of a mix-up in judgment, that is not "someone intentionally attacking other people".
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution. I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental. They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.
I was just trying to explain why the only conceivable reason I could think of for calling an accident or honest misunderstanding an aggression was not valid.
So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it? That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."
-
This will hopefully be my last post on the topic. Our discussion has grown quite fragmented, so I will try to minimize quoting.
First off, Merriam-Webster broke this camel's back. "Aggression" is obviously the wrong word for what I'm trying to say. So henceforth, my definition will apply instead to "infringement". I'd love to rescind the definition entirely, as you suggest, but I have yet to see a better replacement. The best argument you have against it is that it treats people who make mistakes the same way as criminals, but the minimal response patch fixes that by offering everyone—including criminals—the same opportunity to rectify things. The very solution you propose.
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.
1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.
2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.
3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.
4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )
5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.
You're still not understanding my request. Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.
I'm sorry. I thought the next step was too obvious to spell out, but here it is:
6. Steps 1. through 5. shows that it amounts to theft. Theft fits the following definition:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right 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.
A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person. A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else. Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.
These are examples of someone intentionally attacking other people. Those other people are innocent until proven guilty, so the attackers cannot think they have a right to do so, unless they believe they have a "right to aggression", but the right I'm referring to in the definition must be a natural right, for a right to aggression would make the word aggression meaningless.
Yet another modification to your definition. It's far too convoluted for my taste. Also, if I get arrested because of a mix-up in judgment, that is not "someone intentionally attacking other people".
The only part of the mix up in judgments presented in these examples that constitute aggression are that the aggressor has responded with force against parties that are presumed to be innocent, as they have not been reasonably proven to be guilty. If they merely made accusations, but behaved in a manner that reflected the required presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, then there would have been no aggression, just bad judgment calls.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution. I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental. They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.
I was just trying to explain why the only conceivable reason I could think of for calling an accident or honest misunderstanding an aggression was not valid.
So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it? That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."
It's not a grey area. Up until the point where you refused to pay restitution and/or cease inadvertently encroaching on my rights, you have not committed aggression and I have no right to use force against you. Once you default on your responsibility to settle the conflict and/or make amends and/or restitution if the conflict is decided in my favor, you have crossed the line, from simple non-criminal liability, over into outright aggression.
-
1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.
2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.
3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.
4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )
5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.
You're still not understanding my request. Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.
I'm sorry. I thought the next step was too obvious to spell out, but here it is:
6. Steps 1. through 5. shows that it amounts to theft. Theft fits the following definition:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right 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.
I am not comfortable with something as basic as identifying infringement being dependent on the course of future events. Either it was willful at the time, or it was not; either it was aggression as soon as it happened, or it is not aggression at all.
So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it? That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."
It's not a grey area. Up until the point where you refused to pay restitution and/or cease inadvertently encroaching on my rights, you have not committed aggression and I have no right to use force against you. Once you default on your responsibility to settle the conflict and/or make amends and/or restitution if the conflict is decided in my favor, you have crossed the line, from simple non-criminal liability, over into outright aggression.
What about the wrongful arrest scenario? Force has certainly been used on me. I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression. They believe they are, so they are not themselves aggressing by your definition. How is this not a gray area?
-
1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.
2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.
3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.
4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )
5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.
You're still not understanding my request. Please show me how this is aggression, by matching circumstances to the exact text of your proposed definition.
I'm sorry. I thought the next step was too obvious to spell out, but here it is:
6. Steps 1. through 5. shows that it amounts to theft. Theft fits the following definition:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right 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.
I am not comfortable with something as basic as identifying infringement being dependent on the course of future events.
Either it was willful at the time, or it was not; either it was aggression as soon as it happened, or it is not aggression at all.
That's correct. It either was or wasn't aggression at the time it happened.
The refusal to pay a debt incurred or the refusal to cease an inadvertent infringement of my rights can be viewed as a separate subsequent incident.
In the first case it would be analogous to purchasing something with the intention of paying for it when the bill arrives. (It's not aggression) Next week the bill arrives, but during the week you find out that your being transferred to a job overseas and thinking that it will be too difficult for the vendor to find you and collect his money and that you won't need this vendor anymore, you toss his bill in the garbage can.(Now it's aggression.)
In the second case, you inadvertently prevent me from fully exercising my property rights.(It's an honest mistake, so it's not aggression.) I bring this to your attention, insisting that you stop it. You ignore my complaint and continue your infringement.(This is not an honest mistake anymore. It's aggression.)
So you are okay with allowing "gray area" force that is neither aggression nor a response to it? That seems odd, considering one of your principles was "You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression."
It's not a grey area. Up until the point where you refused to pay restitution and/or cease inadvertently encroaching on my rights, you have not committed aggression and I have no right to use force against you. Once you default on your responsibility to settle the conflict and/or make amends and/or restitution if the conflict is decided in my favor, you have crossed the line, from simple non-criminal liability, over into outright aggression.
What about the wrongful arrest scenario? Force has certainly been used on me. I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression. They believe they are, so they are not themselves committing aggression by your definition. How is this not a gray area?
A wrongful arrest, if it's an honest mistake and they mistakenly thought that you had already been given a chance to make restitution and/or amends or dispute the claim against you, but in fact, due to some mix up, had not been given the chance, or mistakenly identified as someone of similar appearance, is not aggression. It would create a liability owed to you, that the arresting party would pay in settlement. If you couldn't agree on the amount, then you would both go to arbitration.
Basically, I view aggression as synonymous with criminal activity. I don't view accidents, honest mistakes and disagreements as criminal, yet they still may incur liability. It's only the deviation from the standard definition that causes confusion and creates these "grey" areas in your own mind, but not in actuallity.
-
What about the wrongful arrest scenario? Force has certainly been used on me. I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression. They believe they are, so they are not themselves committing aggression by your definition. How is this not a gray area?
A wrongful arrest, if it's an honest mistake and they mistakenly thought that you had already been given a chance to make restitution and/or amends or dispute the claim against you, but in fact, due to some mix up, had not been given the chance, or mistakenly identified as someone of similar appearance, is not aggression. It would create a liability owed to you, that the arresting party would pay in settlement. If you couldn't agree on the amount, then you would both go to arbitration.
We are in agreement here, except that I still see non-aggressive, non-responsive force.
Basically, I view aggression as synonymous with criminal activity. I don't view accidents, honest mistakes and disagreements as criminal, yet they still may incur liability.
Understood. This seems like a semantic impasse; we both want things to function the same way but cannot agree on the definitions that make it all work. As long as we both remain consistent (which means me ceding the term "aggression" to criminal acts), everything is fine. Thank you for helping me flesh out my thoughts, and for redeeming this thread. I have enjoyed it very much.
-
What about the wrongful arrest scenario? Force has certainly been used on me. I was previously a non-participant, so they are not responding to aggression. They believe they are, so they are not themselves committing aggression by your definition. How is this not a gray area?
A wrongful arrest, if it's an honest mistake and they mistakenly thought that you had already been given a chance to make restitution and/or amends or dispute the claim against you, but in fact, due to some mix up, had not been given the chance, or mistakenly identified as someone of similar appearance, is not aggression. It would create a liability owed to you, that the arresting party would pay in settlement. If you couldn't agree on the amount, then you would both go to arbitration.
We are in agreement here, except that I still see non-aggressive, non-responsive force.
I never said it wasn't a use of force. Just that it was an honest mistake that creates a liability, but not aggression.
Basically, I view aggression as synonymous with criminal activity. I don't view accidents, honest mistakes and disagreements as criminal, yet they still may incur liability.
Understood. This seems like a semantic impasse; we both want things to function the same way but cannot agree on the definitions that make it all work. As long as we both remain consistent (which means me ceding the term "aggression" to criminal acts), everything is fine. Thank you for helping me flesh out my thoughts, and for redeeming this thread. I have enjoyed it very much.
The same here. It's a shame that others on this board cannot debate without becoming condescending and uncivil.