# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  The NAP

## Truth Warrior

*The Non-Aggression Principle* 

*To paraphrase, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is usually stated as "do not initiate force or fraud", or "if it harms none, do what you will", or "treat others as you'd like to be treated", or "live and let live". In more detail,*

*Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone elses person or property. In other words, except for self-defense, dont harm others, dont harm or steal their property, dont break your word, dont try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and dont delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.*

*Liberty is the state of freedom achieved when everyone abides by NAP. It's a fundamental right of all individual persons, not something granted by a government or constitution. Liberty is inherently ours by birthright, regardless of whether one believes it comes from God, Nature, the Universe, or the simple fact that we're sentient beings with free will. Logic and necessity demand that we respect each other's rights, or else we revert to the law of the jungle. That is why NAP is the civilized version of:*

*Natural Law* 
*When most people ask themselves what is "Natural Law", they think of the "law of the jungle", survival of the fittest, essentially total violence and chaos, kill or be killed. This is how it is for wild animals driven by instinct. But we are sentient beings, intelligent, self-aware, with free will and (for most of us) a conscience. If the term "Natural Law" is to have any meaning for us, what is the natural law, what does Nature have to say, for such an exceptional self-directed being which can utilize not only instinct and intuition but also logical reason?*


*Obviously, since we're still animals and survival is non-trivial for many of us, we're still subject to the law of the jungle as a last resort. But humanity is smart enough to create and use tools to better interact with our world and exercise more control over our lives. We have developed technology to such an extent that we are capable of (and interested in) much more than mere survival. We have the ability to rationally decide how we want to interact with each other - either violently or peacefully; either fraudulently or honestly. We can come up with more than one solution to a problem, and often some solutions are much better than others. We can thus come up with our own laws to live by, above and beyond the law of the jungle. Indeed, it is the nature of sentient beings to survive and prosper by interacting intelligently with each other, rather than acting short-sightedly like mere animals - and obviously it works better too. This is because by applying rational thought, we can discover or develop opportunities for working together to accomplish more than we could individually. This makes it in our own best interest to deal with each other as equals. Thus, coming up with the most workable and efficient and mutually life-enhancing set of laws would be one way of following our Natural Law. And the better job we do at this, the better we're living up to our true nature and thus fulfilling Natural Law.*

*Any systems where some people have more rights than others (like dictatorships) are closer to the law of the jungle, in that someone has to obtain and maintain power by force or fraud and use that power to get a better deal than others. This may seem to work well for the bullies but not for the victims; thus only a few people are lifted above the conditions of savagery. Even those few on top are still living like savages, since they have to continually maintain their power by force or else lose it. Thus, this system is inefficient and ineffective.*


*A system where all people have equal rights, however, is much more civilized, efficient, and constructive, because it creates the least amount of destructive conflict. Competition can still thrive and continue improving the species but can't get too far out of hand, because the system is self-balancing as long as most people understand and remember the main principle involved (NAP). And because everyone has equal rights, it's easier for people to cooperate and collaborate with each other to produce mutually beneficial results. Thus, everyone's life can be improved, and to a greater degree, under this system. Then almost everyone, almost all the time, is lifted far above the mere concerns of survival and the law of the jungle, so this does a much better job of fulfilling our potential and our true nature and thus Natural Law.*


*The above argument is based mostly on our rational nature to show how it works in principle independently of any particular religious context. In other words, it works no matter what religion one believes in, or even whether one believes in any religion at all. For many, depending on their own individual beliefs, this argument is even stronger.*

*So, the natural state of things is for all of us to have equal rights and to refrain from violating each other's rights - in other words, to always follow the Non-Aggression Principle. Thus, in effect, for humanity, NAP is the essence of Natural Law.*

*Common Law* 
*The term "Common Law" has several meanings or derivations. In one sense, it means the informal body of law (in effect) consisting of customary behaviors and practices of civilizations over millenia. In America, that tends to mean English Common Law. In another sense, it means what are the most common or universal laws all over the world despite the different laws in different countries or the different laws and rules that different religions impose on their followers. This is why Common Law must be* *secular** to be truly neutral, universal, and common.*

*These can all be considered imperfect examples of trying to figure out what are the minimum universal common principles that people must live by in order to have a functioning civilization, without the extra laws and customs that are specific to particular countries or religions or cultures. If you've read this entire web page so far, it should be quite obvious that the answer is NAP. Thus, throughout this web site, the phrase "Common Law" will be considered to mean NAP. This is what* *Common Law** should really mean, and the world would be much better off if was truly the common (and only) law of the whole world.* 

*http://common-law.net/nap.html*

----------


## Truth Warrior

*No libertarians with replies here, hunh?*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *No libertarians with replies here, hunh?*


I just found it, and I'll read it later and comment.  Thanks for posting.  I'll bump it for you for now, though.  TTYl, sensei.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Pretty interesting stuff, and well in line with my opinion.  I think Theo, et. al. would be offended, though.  I would suggest our "archist"/statist friends read this as well.

TTYL, TW.

HB34.

----------


## Mesogen

There are a lot of "almost everyone"s and "most of the time"s in there.

How does one ensure that everyone follows the Non-Aggression Principle? 

Or a better question: How would one ensure that the greatest number of people follow the NAP?





> Pretty interesting stuff, and well in line with my opinion.  I think Theo, et. al. would be offended, though.  I would suggest our "archist"/statist friends read this as well.
> 
> TTYL, TW.
> 
> HB34.


The above passage makes a very good argument to have some form of government. 


*Liberty is the state of freedom achieved when everyone abides by NAP.*

But how often does someone violate the NAP? Pretty damned often.

*When most people ask themselves what is "Natural Law", they think of the "law of the jungle", survival of the fittest, essentially total violence and chaos, kill or be killed.*

Go into a jungle and observe a group of a certain species and watch how they interact with one another. Any social species with any amount of intelligence is not living in total violence and chaos. 

Actually, they don't even need intelligence. Look at an ant, termite, or bee colony. Total chaos and violence? Hardly.

*This is because by applying rational thought, we can discover or develop opportunities for working together to accomplish more than we could individually.*

What's that? Working together through logic and rational thought to accomplish something? You mean like protecting each other's liberty (rights)? How would we do that? 

*Any systems where some people have more rights than others (like dictatorships) are closer to the law of the jungle*

Supposedly, no one has any more rights than any other. So this passage contradicts itself.

*Competition can still thrive and continue improving the species but can't get too far out of hand, because the system is self-balancing as long as most people understand and remember the main principle involved (NAP).*

And of course, since everyone is so civilized, no one will violate the NAP.

* This is what Common Law should really mean, and the world would be much better off if was truly the common (and only) law of the whole world.*

Who's going to en*force* this law? 

What if a person decides to violate the NAP? Then what?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The above passage makes a very good argument to have some form of government.


You made a BS assertion without backing it up.  Defend your claim or abandon it.

----------


## Mesogen

> You made a BS assertion without backing it up.  Defend your claim or abandon it.


The passages below back it up. 

Read.

----------


## Mesogen

The linked to webpage also argues for government. It calls for the establishment of Common Law Courts.

Maybe another word for it would be Collective Law.


http://common-law.net/

And it's also full of BS.

example - 


> However, most civilized countries have laws supporting (or at least allowing) alternative dispute resolution methods such as arbitration, and if all of the participants become "Common Law Citizens" (members of the Common Law Institute) and thus recognize the authority of the court, then the court case could be considered as simply a matter of a membership organization using its own arbitration procedures (already agreed to by its members) to settle a dispute among its members.


Civilized countries? You mean the ones with governments? 

What if it didn't have one? Would anyone be subject to this Common Law Court? No. If no one recognizes it, what good is it? 




> Obviously, it wouldn't do for our courts and laws to rely upon the worthless, fraudulent fiat currencies of the occupation regimes, as they clearly violate NAP.


Fiat money isn't necessarily fraudulent. 

I accept fiat currency all the time. I know it's fiat currency. No one is defrauding me and no one is aggressing on me by giving me fiat currency. 

The thing that violates the NAP is the forced monopoly of this one type of currency, but the existence of a fiat currency in and of itself is not fraudulent.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The passages below back it up. 
> 
> Read.


OIC.  It was just your bad typography that confused me.  n/m.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I just found it, and I'll read it later and comment. Thanks for posting. I'll bump it for you for now, though.  TTYl, sensei.


 *Thanks! I'd appreciate that.*

----------


## Dark_Horse_Rider

I think that people often reject such a concept, possibly because they take a look at history and the state of the world and think that such an idea or principle is just some lofty ideal, just some fluffy stuff, that would be really nice if it were the case, yet since it is perceived as not really practical in the " real world " they toss it aside and continue to engage in the law of the jungle, because why should THEY be the sucker and be taken advantage of, or simply, not get theirs ? 

 Surely there have been individuals and to some extent, cultures and societies, that have fostered these ideals and even done their best to actually live them. Unless the persons lived extremely isolated from the outside world, not only was it probably a great challenge to manifest this lifestyle, they also probably often endured brutality from the people that didn't get that idea or simply rejected it. So I mean, its hard to blame people for engaging in the game to survive, even foolhardy, as this " jungle principle " is in fact necessary for the development of our species. 

 It is at once, the very nature of growth, in which things diversify and grow through competition and conquering, and also the source of immense grief ( incurred through this process ) that becomes the impetus for transcending that stage and attaining harmony ( NAP, enlightened culture ). All of this is intrinsically and directly related to the nature and flow of time itself. Spring and Summer exist for the purpose of harvest in the Autumn, transcendence.

 So how does the whole world awaken to this principle ? Take a look at the direction and flow of world events, and a scenario starts to become visible.   


 Having said all that, I do believe that these ideals ( NAP, and actively bettering others ) are indeed the way of the future, and that, it is as wise to do ones best to manifest this in ones life, as it is foolish to try to wash off blood with blood.  

 Thanks to TW for another thought provoking post !

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Pretty interesting stuff, and well in line with my opinion. I think Theo, et. al. would be offended, though. I would suggest our "archist"/statist friends read this as well.
> 
> TTYL, TW.
> 
> HB34.


  * It makes sense to me.   I think you're right.   That'll probably only happen on a cold day in hell.*

----------


## Dark_Horse_Rider

...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

btw...

TW-

I think that any archist (statist) who reads this would immediately say something like "What?  Who is going to keep people from hurting each other or themselves?"  The weakness of the piece is that it doesn't give a practical solution for things like this.  The uncritical thinker just won't "get" it.  Perhaps you could also post another piece by the author that explains some real life/"utilitarian" applications?  Good read overall, IMHO.  TTYL, sensei.

HB34.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## phill4paul

> Under this utopia if someone breaks their word what happens?  I am sure your answer is going to involve some level of force being applied.  What level of force is appropriate?  Who decides?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyhhFzE5O5U

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Under this utopia if someone breaks their word what happens?  I am sure your answer is going to involve some level of force being applied.  What level of force is appropriate?  Who decides?


You've proved my point in post #13 of this thread.   I'm not so familiar with this writer, so I'm hoping TW will add some more to this.

----------


## Theocrat

*Why* should anyone be obligated to follow the "Non-Aggression Principle?" *How* could it be enforced on people who wish to *not* live by it?

----------


## idiom

> *Why* should anyone be obligated to follow the "Non-Aggression Principle?" *How* could it be enforced on people who wish to *not* live by it?


Battered house wives all live by it just fine.

----------


## Theocrat

> Battered house wives all live by it just fine.


That's not answering my questions, though. Are battered housewives the model for how all men and women should live in society?

----------


## idiom

Thats what TW says.

There is a similar problem with Tolerance. People who proclaim tolerance generally don't want to tolerate non-tolerance.

The principle is also a bit lax in that "Aggression is alright, as long as you didn't start it."

Does the Non-aggression principle involve provoking aggression? Apparently Russia is well within its rights to stop selling Natural Gas to Europe at the drop off a hat. Letting people die in the cold is not in fact aggression.

There are no sins of omission under this principle.

This is apart from the fact that the first person to come along and be slightly aggressive historically has had the advantage everytime. If this was not true we would be living in a libertarian paradise.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I think that people often reject such a concept, possibly because they take a look at history and the state of the world and think that such an idea or principle is just some lofty ideal, just some fluffy stuff, that would be really nice if it were the case, yet since it is perceived as not really practical in the " real world " they toss it aside and continue to engage in the law of the jungle, because why should THEY be the sucker and be taken advantage of, or simply, not get theirs ? 
> 
> Surely there have been individuals and to some extent, cultures and societies, that have fostered these ideals and even done their best to actually live them. Unless the persons lived extremely isolated from the outside world, not only was it probably a great challenge to manifest this lifestyle, they also probably often endured brutality from the people that didn't get that idea or simply rejected it. So I mean, its hard to blame people for engaging in the game to survive, even foolhardy, as this " jungle principle " is in fact necessary for the development of our species. 
> 
> It is at once, the very nature of growth, in which things diversify and grow through competition and conquering, and also the source of immense grief ( incurred through this process ) that becomes the impetus for transcending that stage and attaining harmony ( NAP, enlightened culture ). All of this is intrinsically and directly related to the nature and flow of time itself. Spring and Summer exist for the purpose of harvest in the Autumn, transcendence.
> 
> So how does the whole world awaken to this principle ? Take a look at the direction and flow of world events, and a scenario starts to become visible. 
> 
> 
> ...


*Your welcome.* 

*It seems to me that we can stay stuck as savages and barbarians until we drive our species to extinction.  Or we can choose otherwise, with no guarantees of success.  The future starts now.  I think the correct choice is obvious and clearly worth a shot. A free society is created one by one.* 

*Thanks!*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> btw...
> 
> TW-
> 
> I think that any archist (statist) who reads this would immediately say something like "What? Who is going to keep people from hurting each other or themselves?" The weakness of the piece is that it doesn't give a practical solution for things like this. The uncritical thinker just won't "get" it. Perhaps you could also post another piece by the author that explains some real life/"utilitarian" applications? Good read overall, IMHO. TTYL, sensei.
> 
> HB34.


 *It's an individual choice for individuals to choose or not.  I choose for me, the only person I can control, and not for anyone else.    I sadly understand that the barbarians and savages just don't get it.  That's not really my problem to solve.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Under this utopia if someone breaks their word what happens? I am sure your answer is going to involve some level of force being applied. What level of force is appropriate? Who decides?


*What utopia? I saw no promise of utopia in the OP. The choice is up to you. What are YOU going to do?*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> *Why* should anyone be obligated to follow the "Non-Aggression Principle?" *How* could it be enforced on people who wish to *not* live by it?


 *Why should anyone be obligated to follow Jesus? In the very same vein, it's a PERSONAL choice and decision for the individual. I thought you just might have already understood that.  Why not think of it as an expression of the "Golden Rule"?  Sound familiar? It probably would to a Christian.*

*Your second question clearly shows that you just don't get it.* 

*WWJD?*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Why should anyone be obligated to follow Jesus? In the very same vein, it's a PERSONAL choice and decision for the individual. I thought you just might have already understood that.  *Why not think of it as an expression of the "Golden Rule"?  Sound familiar?  It probably would to a Christian.*
> 
> Your second question clearly shows that you just don't get it.


I guess passive-aggression is just fine and dandy, eh?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> just fine


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractor*

----------


## Theocrat

> *Why should anyone be obligated to follow Jesus? In the very same vein, it's a PERSONAL choice and decision for the individual. I thought you just might have already understood that.  Why not think of it as an expression of the "Golden Rule"?  Sound familiar? It probably would to a Christian.*
> 
> *Your second question clearly shows that you just don't get it.* 
> 
> *WWJD?*


One reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because He is the only way mankind can have access to a true and loving relationship with God, receive full forgiveness of sins, and obtain eternal life. Another reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because their souls are at stake. Rejecting Christ has serious and eternal consequences to it. Coming to Christ is not simply a matter of a one-time personal choice; it calls for lifelong perseverance and obedience towards our Creator.

However, following the NAP has no obligation attached to it, especially if one believes we're all here by random chance. Just as animals in nature are aggressive, so human beings are aggressive by instinct. It follows from this line of reasoning that it may be impossible for certain human beings to even follow the NAP because they haven't "evolved" fully to that level yet, if ever. 

What about the pragmatist? If it takes aggression to accomplish a goal, then why not go for it? If a person is powerful and rich enough, he can do whatever he wants to get his agenda completed. He is under no obligation to follow "non-aggression" if it achieves an expected end (the end justifies the means).

Once again, you're failure to understand human nature blinds you from seeing that men will not automatically do that which benefits other humans under a system of the NAP. Their hearts need to be changed, first. That will only happen when men hear the Gospel, have their souls changed by the Holy Spirit, and believe what the Gospel says in repentance and faith. That's what Jesus requires men to do, to answer you "WWJD" question. Your internal affects your externals. 

Men are not basically good creatures, but the NAP assumes this to be the case in order that it can be followed. As idiom has pointed out, there have been examples in history where slightly aggressive people have had the advantage over others. Stalin immediately comes to mind. How do you get someone like a Josef Stalin to follow the NAP? Do you use aggression, or do you risk your life by telling a powerful dictator, who has everything, how he ought to live? That is the challenge I lay before you in asserting the NAP as a realistic ideal before all men.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> One reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because He is the only way mankind can have access to a true and loving relationship with God, receive full forgiveness of sins, and obtain eternal life. Another reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because their souls are at stake. Rejecting Christ has serious and eternal consequences to it. Coming to Christ is not simply a matter of a one-time personal choice; it calls for lifelong perseverance and obedience towards our Creator.
> 
> However, following the NAP has no obligation attached to it, especially if one believes we're all here by random chance. Just as animals in nature are aggressive, so human beings are aggressive by instinct. It follows from this line of reasoning that it may be impossible for certain human beings to even follow the NAP because they haven't "evolved" fully to that level yet, if ever. 
> 
> What about the pragmatist? If it takes aggression to accomplish a goal, then why not go for it? If a person is powerful and rich enough, he can do whatever he wants to get his agenda completed. He is under no obligation to follow "non-aggression" if it achieves an expected end (the end justifies the means).
> 
> Once again, you're failure to understand human nature blinds you from seeing that men will not automatically do that which benefits other humans under a system of the NAP. Their hearts need to be changed, first. That will only happen when men hear the Gospel, have their souls changed by the Holy Spirit, and believe what the Gospel says in repentance and faith. That's what Jesus requires men to do, to answer you "WWJD" question. Your internal affects your externals. 
> 
> Men are not basically good creatures, but the NAP assumes this to be the case in order that it can be followed. As idiom has pointed out, there have been examples in history where slightly aggressive people have had the advantage over others. Stalin immediately comes to mind. How do you get someone like a Josef Stalin to follow the NAP? Do you use aggression, or do you risk your life by telling a powerful dictator, who has everything, how he ought to live? That is the challenge I lay before you in asserting the NAP as a realistic ideal before all men.


 *What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live?   Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?*

----------


## Theocrat

> *What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live?   Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?*


Jesus calls us to live towards a Person, not a principle. It's about a covenantal relationship towards our God Who redeems us from sin and gives us the world as an inheritance. Sure, there are principles involved in living unto God, but those principles are justified by a supreme Authority, the God Jehovah. If you want to say certain precepts of the NAP align with the teachings of Christ, that's fine. But the NAP cannot justify itself without an objective authority who makes such a principle intelligible and necessary. Who is that authority, according to proponents of the NAP?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Jesus calls us to live towards a Person, not a principle. It's about a covenantal relationship towards our God Who redeems us from sin and gives us the world as an inheritance. Sure, there are principles involved in living unto God, but those principles are justified by a supreme Authority, the God Jehovah. If you want to say certain precepts of the NAP align with the teachings of Christ, that's fine. But the NAP cannot justify itself without an objective authority who makes such a principle intelligible and necessary. Who is that authority, according to proponents of the NAP?


*What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live? Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?*

----------


## mudhoney

So the most common complaint about this seems to be that people can't conceive of defense and justice under a system of non-aggression...

Although there is no way to tell what types of systems and institutions would arise in a free-market for justice and defense, there is plenty of libertarian literature our there which covers these topics.

Just passing off the idea of voluntarily funded competition based industry to provide defense and arbitration services is like denying the success of the market in handling other services.  The advocates of anarcho-capitalism have never been utopian about it anyways, from what I've seen.

The Ethics of Liberty
For a New Liberty
The Market for Liberty
Libertarian Papers
Journal of Libertarian Studies

----------


## Theocrat

> *What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live? Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?*


Basically, this:




> Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and, with all thy mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)


However, this is not what the NAP teaches.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Thanks for the links! 




> So the most common complaint about this seems to be that people can't conceive of defense and justice under a system of non-aggression...
> 
> Although there is no way to tell what types of systems and institutions would arise in a free-market for justice and defense, there is plenty of libertarian literature our there which covers these topics.
> 
> Just passing off the idea of voluntarily funded competition based industry to provide defense and arbitration services is like denying the success of the market in handling other services.  The advocates of anarcho-capitalism have never been utopian about it anyways, from what I've seen.
> 
> The Ethics of Liberty
> For a New Liberty
> The Market for Liberty
> ...

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Basically, this:
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not what the NAP teaches.


 *Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.*

----------


## Theocrat

> So the most common complaint about this seems to be that people can't conceive of defense and justice under a system of non-aggression...
> 
> Although there is no way to tell what types of systems and institutions would arise in a free-market for justice and defense, there is plenty of libertarian literature our there which covers these topics.
> 
> Just passing off the idea of voluntarily funded competition based industry to provide defense and arbitration services is like denying the success of the market in handling other services.  The advocates of anarcho-capitalism have never been utopian about it anyways, from what I've seen.
> 
> The Ethics of Liberty
> For a New Liberty
> The Market for Liberty
> ...


Justice and defense are not products of the market. We don't gain or lose those based on a law or supply and demand. Justice and defense are always needed in society, especially when that society is made up of sinners. God has ordained that civil governments have that jurisdictional responsibility to handle justice and defense as its legitimate function to protect the innocent and punish evildoers.

Let me ask you this. Suppose some maniac goes into an elementary school and murders all the children in there. How should he be dealt with under the NAP? You can't force him to go to jail because that would be in violation of the NAP. You definitely could not sentence him to death. So, it seems the only alternative would be that you apply some "non-aggressive" measure towards the murderer. Of course, that won't stop him from doing it again because there is no civil restraint being applied to change his behavior, and there is no justice, either.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Justice and defense are not products of the market. We don't gain or lose those based on a law or supply and demand. Justice and defense are always needed in society, especially when that society is made up of sinners. God has ordained that civil governments have that jurisdictional responsibility to handle justice and defense as its legitimate function to protect the innocent and punish evildoers.
> 
> Let me ask you this. Suppose some maniac goes into an elementary school and murders all the children in there. How should he be dealt with under the NAP? You can't force him to go to jail because that would be in violation of the NAP. You definitely could not sentence him to death. So, it seems the only alternative would be that you apply some "non-aggressive" measure towards the murderer. Of course, that won't stop him from doing it again because there is no civil restraint being applied to change his behavior, and there is no justice, either.


*Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.*

----------


## Theocrat

> *Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.*


Since I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you can give me an overview or summary of these reading assignments.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Since I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you can give me an overview or summary of these reading assignments.


 *It's in your book, do your homework. Hint: Matthew and Luke. Extra credit given for finding the "Golden Rule".*

----------


## Theocrat

> *It's in your book, do you homework.*


Yes. I've read those accounts many times, and I can assure you that Christ's teachings are quite different than the NAP, with little overlap. For one thing, He never tells His disciples to live according to a principle which exists apart from Himself. Christ justifies those "non-aggressive principles" upon Himself, commanding those who love Him to live after Him. That's where I see the difference, epistemologically speaking.

----------


## mudhoney

> But the NAP cannot justify itself without an objective authority who makes such a principle intelligible and necessary. Who is that authority, according to proponents of the NAP?


What makes such a principle intelligible is the works of people like Murray Rothbard who observe the natures of man and use their reason to put forth a consistent doctrine of ethics.  People may some day adopt this doctrine just as they have adopted other forms of guidance for what is right and wrong.  Rejecting the coercive monopoly state just happens to be particularly radical considering how we're all raised with the assumption that individual sovereignty and private property rights must be violated to ensure the state's existence.

----------


## Theocrat

> What makes such a principle intelligible is the works of people like Murray Rothbard who observe the natures of man and use their reason to put forth a consistent doctrine of ethics.  People may some day adopt this doctrine just as they have adopted other forms of guidance for what is right and wrong.  Rejecting the coercive monopoly state just happens to be particularly radical considering how we're all raised with the assumption that individual sovereignty and private property rights must be violated to ensure the state's existence.


Who is Murray Rothbard? Why should I listen to him (especially when his reasoning precludes God having anything to say about it)? He's not an absolute authority on making principles intelligible. As a matter of fact, there have been better economists and philosophers than him in history who can make such principles even more intelligible and reasonable. How was the NAP understood ere the world knew a Murray Rothbard?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Yes. I've read those accounts many times, and I can assure you that Christ's teachings are quite different than the NAP, with little overlap. For one thing, He never tells His disciples to live according to a principle which exists apart from Himself. Christ justifies those "non-aggressive principles" upon Himself, commanding those who love Him to live after Him. That's where I see the difference, epistemologically speaking.


*Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.* 

*The NAP and Jesus are NOT competitors nor either/or contradictions.*

----------


## Theocrat

> *Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> 


* Jesus would be so proud of you.*

----------


## mudhoney

> Let me ask you this. Suppose some maniac goes into an elementary school and murders all the children in there. How should he be dealt with under the NAP? You can't force him to go to jail because that would be in violation of the NAP. You definitely could not sentence him to death. So, it seems the only alternative would be that you apply some "non-aggressive" measure towards the murderer. Of course, that won't stop him from doing it again because there is no civil restraint being applied to change his behavior, and there is no justice, either.


I don't know about the NAP, but under Rothbardian libertarianism the owners of the school have every right to defend it with force.  Since the criminal has initiated force against the property and persons of others they have forfeited their own rights, and can be punished with force by whatever means.  The topic of just punishment is another story, but I would think by murdering they have lost their right to live themselves.  The fate of people who violate property rights may vary depending on the community involved.

I don't see everyone as sinners who would do the worst possible things if not forced to fund certain institutions.  There are bad people, but the overall tendency of people guided by reason, which I believe clearly tends toward social co-operation to achieve economic ends, rather than the financially and socially expensive act of violence.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*"The existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed to exist." -**- Stefan Molyneux*

----------


## Truth Warrior

*Josephus and the Origin of the State*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *"The existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed to exist." -**- Stefan Molyneux*



"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"  ~Will Rogers

----------


## Truth Warrior

> "Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?" ~Will Rogers


 *We're not going to last anywhere near as long as Rome did.<IMHO> Nor as long as the Neanderthals for that matter.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *We're not going to last anywhere near as long as Rome did.<IMHO>*


I suspect you're right.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Does it strike anyone as odd that the same person who is arguing against aggressiveness has repeatedly used insulting and passive-aggressiveness to argue his point in this thread?

----------


## mudhoney

> Who is Murray Rothbard? Why should I listen to him (especially when his reasoning precludes God having anything to say about it)? He's not an absolute authority on making principles intelligible. As a matter of fact, there have been better economists and philosophers than him in history who can make such principles even more intelligible and reasonable. How was the NAP understood ere the world knew a Murray Rothbard?


I don't consider God an absolute authority on anything, nor any man.  I use reason to formulate what is right and what is wrong based on my experiences in life.  Every person does so to some degree whether they believe in a god or not, because it's a part of being human.  The ethics put forth in the name of a god just happen to be much more popular than the ethics put forth by a Rothbard.  To me that doesn't qualify any person or faith-based higher power as an authority on anything.

Personally I can't fathom why some people can ethically be immune to laws that are otherwise commonplace among the masses.  For instance, the legislator is currently allowed to seize other people's property and use it to murder thousands of innocent people without persecution.  This is how the state works.  It is a minority of the population laying down arbitrary laws that they themselves do not have to follow.  I doubt god has endowed them with some sort of divinity that would justify even the slightest ethical privilege over other men.

----------


## Theocrat

> *"The existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed to exist." -**- Stefan Molyneux*


Once again, Stefan Molyneux confuses the institution itself with the people involved with the institution. There is a difference between the two. Also, it needs to be pointed out that evil is not an entity in and of itself. Evil is simply a lack of good. The State is good because it is ordained by an omnibenevolent God, and God calls good people (as He defines it) to be involved with the institution in order to ensure its original purposes and jurisdictions are honored and kept. When evil people get involved with the institution (in this case, the State), then it is the duty of good people to get rid of them and return good people to those positions of public service. That's why we have elections.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Once again, Stefan Molyneux confuses the institution itself with the people involved with the institution. There is a difference between the two. Also, it needs to be pointed out that evil is not an entity in and of itself. Evil is simply a lack of good. The State is good because it is ordained by an omnibenevolent God, and God calls good people (as He defines it) to be involved with the institution in order to ensure its original purposes and jurisdictions are honored and kept. When evil people get involved with the institution (in this case, the State), then it is the duty of good people to get rid of them and return good people to those positions of public service. That's why we have elections.


 *We've been all through that "institution" vs. "people" stuff before.   Take away the people and there is NO institution. *

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Does it strike anyone as odd that the same person who is arguing against aggressiveness has repeatedly used insulting and passive-aggressiveness to argue his point in this thread?


*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggression*

----------


## Theocrat

> I don't consider God an absolute authority on anything, nor any man.  I use reason to formulate what is right and what is wrong based on my experiences in life.  Every person does so to some degree whether they believe in a god or not, because it's a part of being human.  The ethics put forth in the name of a god just happen to be much more popular than the ethics put forth by a Rothbard.  To me that doesn't qualify any person or faith-based higher power as an authority on anything.
> 
> Personally I can't fathom why some people can ethically be immune to laws that are otherwise commonplace among the masses.  For instance, the legislator is currently allowed to seize other people's property and use it to murder thousands of innocent people without persecution.  This is how the state works.  It is a minority of the population laying down arbitrary laws that they themselves do not have to follow.  I doubt god has endowed them with some sort of divinity that would justify even the slightest ethical privilege over other men.


So what? Just because one doesn't consider God an absolute authority on anything doesn't dethrone Him from that authority. It just means that person is living in rebellion against God's authority. I, too, believe in using reason to make good decisions in my life, but reason is universal, being justified by God's thinking and standards of cogent thought, not each man's opinion on what he considers to be reasonable and unreasonable. When that becomes the case, reason is no more reason--it is mere opinion. The ethics put forth by God are obviously more popular than Rothbard's because God has supremely more authority to speak on such matters.

Let me tell you why people make themselves "ethically immune to certain laws" which they place upon others. It is because men are sinful, and they will do what want to, even if it means being inconsistent with their own principles, let alone God's principles. God doesn't call us to have ungodly rulers over us, but when people themselves are ungodly and arbitrary, then the necessary consequences from this is that we will have ungodly rulers over us, especially in our system of government. Good fruit cannot come forth from bad trees. Sadly, this is the punishment which God instills on a people who live in disobedience and defiance against Him. So, rather getting angry with God, we should get angry with ourselves for trying to be ethically autonomous from God.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So what? Just because one doesn't consider God an absolute authority on anything doesn't dethrone Him from that authority. It just means that person is living in rebellion against God's authority. I, too, believe in using reason to make good decisions in my life, but reason is universal, being justified by God's thinking and standards of cogent thought, not each man's opinion on what he considers to be reasonable and unreasonable. When that becomes the case, reason is no more reason--it is mere opinion. The ethics put forth by God are obviously more popular than Rothbard's because God has supremely more authority to speak on such matters.
> 
> Let me tell you why people make themselves "ethically immune to certain laws" which they place upon others. It is because men are sinful, and they will do what want to, even if it means being inconsistent with their own principles, let alone God's principles. God doesn't call us to have ungodly rulers over us, but when people themselves are ungodly and arbitrary, then the necessary consequences from this is that we will have ungodly rulers over us, especially in our system of government. Good fruit cannot come forth from bad trees. Sadly, this is the punishment which God instills on a people who live in disobedience and defiance against Him. So, rather getting angry with God, we should get angry with ourselves for trying to be ethically autonomous from God.


*Josephus and the Origin of the State*

----------


## Theocrat

> Does it strike anyone as odd that the same person who is arguing against aggressiveness has repeatedly used insulting and passive-aggressiveness to argue his point in this thread?


Although I understand what you're trying to say, what is "passive-aggressiveness"?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Although I understand what you're trying to say, what is "passive-aggressiveness"?


 *http://www.ask.com/web?q=passive%20aggression&l=dir&qsrc=167&o=10616*

*Perhaps we have a NEW Guideline.*

----------


## LibertyEagle

The current guidelines already cover it.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The current guidelines already cover it.


 *How fortuitous for you.*

----------


## NationaliseIt

What about the duty of the strong to protect the weak?

People on this forum use it as the justification for the state to ban abortion, yet many of the same support RP when he refuses to even vote in favour of motions condemning genocide, let alone do they advocate intervention?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What about the duty of the strong to protect the weak?
> 
> People on this forum use it as the justification for the state to ban abortion, yet many of the same support RP when he refuses to even vote in favour of motions condemning genocide, let alone do they advocate intervention?


*The NAP is for you to decide for you, individually and PERSONALLY. Unfortunately the babies don't have nor get the option to choose. I guess we know how their moms decided on the NAP.*

----------


## idiom

> *The NAP is for you to decide for you, individually and PERSONALLY. Unfortunately the babies don't have nor get the option to choose. I guess we know how their moms decided on the NAP.*


..




> *You pretend to know and comprehend what I am talking about, yet you do not.*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What about the duty of the strong to protect the weak?


That's why the Constitution and our Republic needs to be reinstated.  Our form of government was established to protect the minority, or the one, against the force of the majority.




> People on this forum use it as the justification for the state to ban abortion, yet many of the same support RP when he refuses to even vote in favour of motions condemning genocide, let alone do they advocate intervention?


You're mixing apples and oranges here, I'm afraid.  I can only speak for myself, so let me tell you my viewpoint. Abortion is murder, at least in my eyes.  As far as genocide is concerned, I would imagine he voted against it because we cannot dictate to other sovereign nations.  We need to mind our own business.  However, individual Americans should be free to help in any way they personally choose.

Intervening in other countries' affairs, overthrowing their governments and installing the puppet of our choice, is what has led to the U.S. being hated around the world; not to mention costing money that we do not have to spend.  We are not the policeman of the world; nor should we be.  Our Founders told us to be well-wishers to all and to serve as example.

----------


## NationaliseIt

> You're mixing apples and oranges here, I'm afraid.  I can only speak for myself, so let me tell you my viewpoint. Abortion is murder, at least in my eyes.  As far as genocide is concerned, I would imagine he voted against it because we cannot dictate to other sovereign nations.  We need to mind our own business.  However, individual Americans should be free to help in any way they personally choose.


If abortion is murder then you cannot deny that genocide is murder.

Why does a mother aborting her unwanted pregnancy your business to get involved in? yet tens of thousands being systematically slaughtered will just get a head turned the other way?




> Intervening in other countries' affairs, overthrowing their governments and installing the puppet of our choice, is what has led to the U.S. being hated around the world; not to mention costing money that we do not have to spend.  We are not the policeman of the world; nor should we be.  Our Founders told us to be well-wishers to all and to serve as example.


Many US interventions were despicable, but by stopping genocides and protecting the weak, is that not providing a good example?

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The Consequences of Roe v. Wade* 
*49,551,703* 
*Total Abortions since 1973* 
*Looks like a genocide of the innocent defenseless unborn to me.*

----------


## NationaliseIt

So why do you (and others on this forum) only care (and wish to politically intervene) about the unborn?

Do people stop mattering the second they push through a vagina?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> So why do you (and others on this forum) only care (and wish to politically intervene) about the unborn?
> 
> Do people stop mattering the second they push through a vagina?


 *I only speak for myself, NOT for ANYONE else.  I don't.* 

*Read the OP again, please.* 

*Thanks!*

----------


## Zolah

What's with the bored trolls today? (NationaliseIt and RightisRight)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What's with the bored trolls today? (NationaliseIt and RightisRight)


Same as every day, I suppose.   The trolls may be back in school for the time being, but they still don't have enough homework to occupy them away from RPFs.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> What's with the bored trolls today? (NationaliseIt and RightisRight)


 * Maybe they're "special agents", sent by the DHS FBI.  *

----------


## NationaliseIt

> *I only speak for myself, NOT for ANYONE else.  I don't.* 
> 
> *Read the OP again, please.* 
> 
> *Thanks!*


Care to answer my question?

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Care to answer my question?


 *What part of "I don't." is confusing you. < concern > If you're having trouble with that you may want to just skip the OP.*

----------


## NationaliseIt

Then do you have a suggestion for stopping genocide beyond the old tired "bury our head in the sand" approach that most here follow?

You talk about natural rights and liberty, but who is to enforce it in the name of those too weak to protect themselves? The majority of the citizens of the world didn't grow up on a farm in good 'ol texas being given the skills to provide and protect themselves.

----------


## idiom

> *What part of "I don't." is confusing you. < concern > If your having trouble with that you may want to just skip the OP.*


..




> *If the posts are TOO tough, he, sadly, just ignores them.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Then do you have a suggestion for stopping genocide beyond the old tired "bury our head in the sand" approach that most here follow?
> 
> *I'm a consistent supporter of "PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCIES", it's the grown up thing to do.*
> 
> You talk about natural rights and liberty, but who is to enforce it in the name of those too weak to protect themselves? The majority of the citizens of the world didn't grow up on a farm in good 'ol texas being given the skills to provide and protect themselves.
> 
> *Well first we stop the AGGRESSION and then see where we are.  Which brings us back to the NAP.  A free society is created one by one.*

----------


## NationaliseIt

Doesn't answer with how a libertarian society would deal with say Burma?

Ron Paul wont even vote to condemn genocidal actions.

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Doesn't answer with how a libertarian society would deal with say Burma?
> 
> Ron Paul wont even vote to condemn genocidal actions.


 *Sell them stuff. A moot point while the state still grows.   What are you doing about genocide?*

----------


## idiom

> Then do you have a suggestion for stopping genocide beyond the old tired "bury our head in the sand" approach that most here follow?


As long as other people are the ones commiting Genocide, and your not the target, the NAP doesn't care.

Genocide is somebodies elses problem. If the victims hadn't been so aggressive then no one would be trying to kill them.

There is nothing particualry bad about genocide. The Bible is in favour of it, that is why the humanists don't like it.

----------


## NationaliseIt

> *Sell them stuff. A moot point while the state still grows.   What are you doing about genocide?*


A weak retort: I ask again, what is the libertarian position on genocide when you aren't one of the parties involved.




> As long as other people are the ones commiting Genocide, and your not the target, the NAP doesn't care.
> 
> Genocide is somebodies elses problem. If the victims hadn't been so aggressive then no one would be trying to kill them.
> 
> There is nothing particualry bad about genocide. The Bible is in favour of it, that is why the humanists don't like it.


What is your position on abortion?

----------


## idiom

I would never abort a baby.

----------


## NationaliseIt

* Opinion on others aborting their child

* Opinion on a man in africa killing his 10 year old child 

* Opinion on a man living next door to you killing his 10 year old child

----------


## Truth Warrior

> A weak retort: I ask again, what is the libertarian position on genocide when you aren't one of the parties involved.


*The NAP.   Aren't you paying attention?   Tell me the answer you want and I won't say it.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> * Opinion on others aborting their child
> 
> * Opinion on a man in africa killing his 10 year old child 
> 
> * Opinion on a man living next door to you killing his 10 year old child


 *How about starting your own thread?*  *This one's already got a topic.*

----------


## NationaliseIt

You started a thread about aggression and don't wish to answer questions about aggression (though there has been a minor diversion).

This thread shall do (they are more than just vessels for people to agree with you)


So what is your opinion on my three points? what is the NAP position on them?

----------


## idiom

> * Opinion on others aborting their child
> 
> * Opinion on a man in africa killing his 10 year old child 
> 
> * Opinion on a man living next door to you killing his 10 year old child


NAP says:

Who cares.
Who cares.
Who cares.

The Nap is thus incompatible with the Directives of pretty much every significant moral figure, especially Jesus who commanded us to Love our Neighbours as He loved us. He later expanded this to specifically mean showing pity to those in need.

The NAP is thus unsuitable as a serious personal philosophy.

It does work to some degree on a broader scale as loose binding philosphy on national governments if it is modified to allow collective security agreements.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If abortion is murder then you cannot deny that genocide is murder.


I didn't deny it.




> Why does a mother aborting her unwanted pregnancy your business to get involved in? yet tens of thousands being systematically slaughtered will just get a head turned the other way?


I said nothing about turning a head.  If you or anyone else wants to give every cent you have towards stopping genocide, or even go to the country where you think it is happening and try to stop it, that should be your choice. 




> Many US interventions were despicable, but by stopping genocides and protecting the weak, is that not providing a good example?


Go forth and stop them.  No one is stopping you.

----------


## idiom

> Go forth and stop them.  No one is stopping you.


The Implicit claim of the OP is that we should not. The NAP is incompatible with vigilantism.

----------


## Matt Collins

I thought this thread title refereed to The Judge ;-)

----------


## Truth Warrior

> You started a thread about aggression and don't wish to answer questions about aggression (though there has been a minor diversion).
> 
> This thread shall do (they are more than just vessels for people to agree with you)
> 
> 
> So what is your opinion on my three points? what is the NAP position on them?


 *Clueless.  It's a thread about NON-AGGRESSION. DUH!*

*Screw your OFF TOPIC three points. I'm tired of and bored by your lame non-responsive one-sided inquisition.*

*Buzz off.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I thought this thread title refereed to The Judge ;-)


 *Ha!  I've learned from you, to not judge a thread by it's title.*

----------


## idiom

> *Clueless.  It's a thread about NON-AGGRESSION. DUH!*
> 
> *Screw your OFF TOPIC three points. I'm tired of and bored by your lame non-responsive one-sided inquisition.*
> 
> *Buzz off.*


..




> *Typical.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> There are a lot of "almost everyone"s and "most of the time"s in there.
> 
> How does one ensure that everyone follows the Non-Aggression Principle? 
> 
> Or a better question: How would one ensure that the greatest number of people follow the NAP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*I believe that you are merely choosing to miss the point, on purpose. And BTW, working awfully hard at THAT too.<IMHO>* 

*The NAP is NOT a "collective" solution. It's an individual one.*

*The NAP is NOT a law, it's a principle. Hence the "P" part of NAP.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle*

*The point is:*

*“Do not initiate force or fraud against anyone else’s person or property. In other words, except for self-defense, don’t harm others, don’t harm or steal their property, don’t break your word, don’t try to coerce anyone by threatening to do any of these things, and don’t delegate or encourage anyone to do any of these things.”*

*That seems pretty hard to miss, to me, ya just gotta be REALLY REALLY trying.*

----------


## Truth Warrior

> The passages below back it up. 
> 
> Read.


 *The top part of the OP explains your confusion. Read.*

----------

