Aggression

Yes. "Voluntary Aggression" is a contradiction.

21 (77.8%)

No. Aggression has nothing to do with consent.

6 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[ladyattis]

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

[MobileDigit]

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?

[gibson042]

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

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

[voodoo]

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.   

[ladyattis]

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

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

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

-- Bridget

[MobileDigit]

I said it was okay on non-rational agents.

Who claims that it applies to non-rational agents?

[ladyattis]

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

[MobileDigit]

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.

[markuzick]

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.

[MobileDigit]

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?

[markuzick]

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.

[MobileDigit]

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.

[ladyattis]

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

[gibson042]

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 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.

[ladyattis]

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 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