# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  NAP Valid or Flawed.

## wannaberocker

Recently, I had a discussion with Rothbardian Girl about Non Aggressive Principle. She brought up some good points in defense of the idea and that got me thinking about the core base of this principle.  What is the core justification of this idea?  

You see most people I’ve talked to about NAP begin with the automatic assumption that NAP is a natural truth. Yet, maybe it’s my foolishness that I’ve never really stopped them and asked “Why do we begin by assuming that NAP is a natural truth”? 

So I guess I wanted this discussion to center around the NAP. Starting from why we assume it’s justified to begin with? And maybe the discussion can then move further after the initial core is judged to be flawed or valid.


Note:
I Was going to point this out but forgot to add it to my OP. Can we please not post articles written by other people, I don’t want to read some third party POV on the issue. I want to read what my fellow members on RPF think, rather than what some dead people thought. 

Thanks.

----------


## brandon

I think most libertarians consider NAP to essentially be a priori. As far as the validity....well when you apply philosophy to real life it often brings you to ridiculous conclusions, and NAP is no exception.

If your question is more a fundamental "Why is aggression bad?" then I think the answer really is going to be a subjective one most of the time. Everyone has their own reasons. On the other hand, there is a school of thought that thinks aggression is a beneficial evolutionary trait of humans that advances our species as a whole, even though it is at times at the expense of the individual.

----------


## fisharmor

Why not put this in political philosophy?

I follow NAP because it plugs into a belief system I adhere to which was in place before I learned about NAP.

But to put it more objectively:  

Does there exist a viable, lasting society now or historically which extolled the *random* initiation of violent force as a virtue?
If such a society is claim to exist or have existed, were there *any* justifications given for the initiation of this force, which boil down to prior use of force against that society?  In other words, was it in fact *not* random?

If no such societies existed, then we're left only with non-random initiation of force.
What is it that separates non-random initiation of force from random kinds?

My personal opinion is that NAP is an equality issue.
Non-random initiation of force assumes that there are classes of people: those who may initiate force without reprisal, and those who may not.
Are all men equal?  If they are, then NAP is required.
If they aren't, then NAP is meaningless.

Unfortunately, we live in a geographical monopoly on the use of force which taints that monopoly by claiming equal status of all men.

----------


## Sam I am

> Recently, I had a discussion with Rothbardian Girl about Non Aggressive Principle. She brought up some good points in defense of the idea and that got me thinking about the core base of this principle.  What is the core justification of this idea?  
> 
> You see most people I’ve talked to about NAP begin with the automatic assumption that NAP is a natural truth. Yet, maybe it’s my foolishness that I’ve never really stopped them and asked “Why do we begin by assuming that NAP is a natural truth”? 
> 
> So I guess I wanted this discussion to center around the NAP. Starting from why we assume it’s justified to begin with? And maybe the discussion can then move further after the initial core is judged to be flawed or valid.


NAP is a very incomplete philosophy, and it is in no way a substitute for a system of laws.  

In order for some people to make it work, they describe non-violent acts, such as theft as "aggression".  They might have to go so far as to consider inconsiderate but not necessarily malicious acts, such as blasting loud music at night in a crowded neighborhood as "aggression"

It also gets very complicated when you consider degree of aggression.  If someone shoves you as they walk by, does that justify a higher degree of violence in retaliation?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

There are many secular reasons, but the NAP can also be justified through religious philosophy/epistemology as well (the synoptic gospels and the epistles come to mind).

----------


## Kotin

Moved to political philosophy.

----------


## wannaberocker

> I think most libertarians consider NAP to essentially be a priori. As far as the validity....well when you apply philosophy to real life it often brings you to *ridiculous conclusions*, and NAP is no exception.
> 
> If your question is more a fundamental "Why is aggression bad?" then I think the answer really is going to be a subjective one most of the time. Everyone has their own reasons. On the other hand, there is a school of thought that thinks aggression is a beneficial evolutionary trait of humans that advances our species as a whole, even though it is at times at the expense of the individual.


That’s true. My question is not really "Why is aggression bad". It’s more in the line of how can NAP be considered a valid philosophy when we know that justification for different degrees of aggression are subjective.

----------


## wannaberocker

> Moved to political philosophy.


thanks.

----------


## wannaberocker

> There are many secular reasons, but the NAP can also be justified through religious philosophy/epistemology as well (the synoptic gospels and the epistles come to mind).


Yeah though i would like to keep it out of the religious realm because not all follow religion.

----------


## wannaberocker

> NAP is a very incomplete philosophy, and it is in no way a substitute for a system of laws.  
> 
> In order for some people to make it work, they describe non-violent acts, such as theft as "aggression".  They might have to go so far as to consider inconsiderate but not necessarily malicious acts, such as blasting loud music at night in a crowded neighborhood as "aggression"
> 
> It also gets very complicated when you consider degree of aggression.  If someone shoves you as they walk by, does that justify a higher degree of violence in retaliation?



That is similar to the issues, I have with NAP. I think NAP only works in very simplistic 1 on 1 example, but fails when more than 2 entities get involved in a more complex structure.

----------


## wannaberocker

> Why not put this in political philosophy?
> 
> I follow NAP because it plugs into a belief system I adhere to which was in place before I learned about NAP.
> 
> But to put it more objectively:  
> 
> Does there exist a viable, lasting society now or historically which extolled the *random* initiation of violent force as a virtue?
> If such a society is claim to exist or have existed, were there *any* justifications given for the initiation of this force, which boil down to prior use of force against that society?  In other words, was it in fact *not* random?
> 
> ...


That is a good point about equality. Yet even if we can agree on some basic idea of what "equality" is, we still fall short of concluding that NAP is somehow connected with that idea of equality. 

For example two brothers can view each other as equal on certain levels. While still using aggression and force against each other on a different level.

----------


## MRoCkEd

NAP is simply a guide. Not all aggression is wrong, and not all sins are "aggression".

----------


## wannaberocker

> NAP is simply a guide. Not all aggression is wrong, and not all sins are "aggression".


In that case we have to wonder what Good is a guide that starts to dissolve, as soon as the situation becomes slightly more complex than a simple 1 on 1 disagreement.

----------


## Sam I am

> In that case we have to wonder what Good is a guide that starts to dissolve, as soon as the situation becomes slightly more complex than a simple 1 on 1 disagreement.


NAP doesn't have to have the rigor that a set of laws has to have, because It's not legally binding.


It's just a good principle to live by, and you should apply it where you can.

In fact, in this day and age, It's better to go one step beyond that and be non-confrontational, even if the other person initiated aggression.  That doesn't mean that you should let people take advantage of you, but "saving face" or "revenge" is never ever a good cause to fight over.

----------


## RiseAgainst

NAP is the logical extension of self-ownership.  The discussion does not begin at NAP, it begins at self-ownership.




> WE HAVE SO FAR been discussing the free society, the society of peaceful cooperation and voluntary interpersonal relations. There is, however, another and contrasting type of interpersonal relation: the use of aggressive violence by one man against another. What such aggressive violence means is that one man invades the property of another without the victim’s consent. The invasion may be against a man’s property in his person (as in the case of bodily assault), or against his property in tangible goods (as in robbery or trespass). In either case, the aggressor imposes his will over the natural property of another—he deprives the other man of his freedom of action and of the full exercise of his natural self-ownership.
> 
>      Let us set aside for a moment the corollary but more complex case of tangible property, and concentrate on the question of a man’s ownership rights to his own body. Here there are two alternatives: either we may lay down a rule that each man should be permitted (i.e., have the right to) the full ownership of his own body, or we may rule that he may not have such complete ownership. If he does, then we have the libertarian natural law for a free society as treated above. But if he does not, if each man is not entitled to full and 100 percent self-ownership, then what does this imply? It implies either one of two conditions: (1) the “communist” one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another—a system of rule by one class over another. These are the only logical alternatives to a state of 100 percent self-ownership for all.[1]
> 
>      Let us consider alternative (2); here, one person or group of persons, G, are entitled to own not only themselves but also the remainder of society, R. But, apart from many other problems and difficulties with this kind of system, we cannot here have a universal or natural-law ethic for the human race. We can only have a partial and arbitrary ethic, similar to the view that Hohenzollerns are by nature entitled to rule over non-Hohenzollerns. Indeed, the ethic which states that Class G is entitled to rule over Class R implies that the latter, R, are subhuman beings who do not have a right to participate as full humans in the rights of self-ownership enjoyed by G—but this of course violates the initial assumption that we are carving out an ethic for human beings as such.
> 
>      What then of alternative (I)? This is the view that, considering individuals A, B, C . . ., no man is entitled to 100percent ownership of his own person. Instead, an equal part of the ownership of A’s body should be vested in B, C . . ., and the same should hold true for each of the others. This view, at least, does have the merit of being a universal rule, applying to every person in the society, but it suffers from numerous other difficulties.
> 
>      In the first place, in practice, if there are more than a very few people in the society, this alternative must break down and reduce to Alternative (2), partial rule by some over others. For it is physically impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man. In practice, then, this concept of universal and equal other-ownership is Utopian and impossible, and supervision and therefore ownership of others necessarily becomes a specialized activity of a ruling class. Hence, no society which does not have full self-ownership for everyone can enjoy a universal ethic. For this reason alone, 100percent self-ownership for every man is the only viable political ethic for mankind.
> ...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> NAP is the logical extension of self-ownership.  The discussion does not begin at NAP, it begins at self-ownership.


Precisely.  Once one accepts that he/she owns his/her life, the logical conclusion is the NAP.  

The Jonathan Gullible video may be simplistic, but it conveys the idea very, very well:

----------


## wannaberocker

Regarding Self Ownership; where do we get the belief that self-ownership is a natural right?

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Regarding Self Ownership; where do we get the belief that self-ownership is a natural right?


You didn't read the quote, did you?

_"...Let us set aside for a moment the corollary but more complex case of tangible property, and concentrate on the question of a man’s ownership rights to his own body. Here there are two alternatives: either we may lay down a rule that each man should be permitted (i.e., have the right to) the full ownership of his own body, or we may rule that he may not have such complete ownership...."_

----------


## JoshLowry

> Not all aggression is wrong


I concur.

Are we not actively opposing a corrupt state?

Isn't that a form of aggression?

 aggression: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.

I'd like to see the ideas of liberty, prosperity, and peace dominate.

A non-violent principle is probably a better way to frame what many of us practice.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> NAP is the logical extension of self-ownership.  The discussion does not begin at NAP, it begins at self-ownership.


Yep, I'm surprised this got to page 2 before this was brought up.




> NAP is a very incomplete philosophy, and it is in no way a substitute for a system of laws.


Who said it's a "substitute for a system of laws"?




> In order for some people to make it work, they describe non-violent acts, such as theft as "aggression". They might have to go so far as to consider inconsiderate but not necessarily malicious acts, such as blasting loud music at night in a crowded neighborhood as "aggression"


Violence is aggression, in libertarian terms, because _you are attempting to illegitimately control (use/abuse) someone else's physical property (their body) by force_, just like theft. Boxing isn't "aggression", and why not? Because it's consensual. People are consenting to inflict damage and have damage inflicted upon their body.

The music blasting thing = It's arguable that noise pollution can result in a violation of rights. You've previously implied that it's legitimate to just "make laws" (initiating violence) which can then be used against people who violate noise ordinances, how do you justify making such a law? Surely it's not initiating force just for the hell of it?




> It also gets very complicated when you consider degree of aggression. If someone shoves you as they walk by, does that justify a higher degree of violence in retaliation?


Keep in mind that the NAP is about legitimate *defense*, not *retaliation*, and you may find your answer. If you're talking about a dispute over the application of force, that's what courts are for.

----------


## wannaberocker

> You didn't read the quote, did you?
> 
> _"...Let us set aside for a moment the corollary but more complex case of tangible property, and concentrate on the question of a man’s ownership rights to his own body. Here there are two alternatives: either we may lay down a rule that each man should be permitted (i.e., have the right to) the full ownership of his own body, or we may rule that he may not have such complete ownership...."_


I did read that Quote. However, that does not point to a natural right of self ownership. There are a number of exceptions to the idea of self ownership as Rothbard describes it. So going by the definition of what a natural right is, self ownership wouldn’t qualify as a natural right.

----------


## wannaberocker

Note:

I Was going to point this out but forgot to add it to my OP. Can we please not post articles written by other people, I dont want to read some third party POV on the issue. I want to read what my fellow members on RPF think, rather than what some dead people thought. 

Thanks.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> I think most libertarians consider NAP to essentially be a priori. As far as the validity....well when you apply philosophy to real life it often brings you to ridiculous conclusions, and NAP is no exception.


Basically my thought.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> I did read that Quote. However, that does not point to a natural right of self ownership. There are a number of exceptions to the idea of self ownership as Rothbard describes it. So going by the definition of what a natural right is, self ownership wouldn’t qualify as a natural right.


Then I'm not sure you read very hard:

_By virtue of being a man, he must use his mind to adopt ends and means; if someone aggresses against him to change his freely-selected course, this violates his nature; it violates the way he must function._

It is natural law because it is the observable nature of things.  Gravity is natural law because it is observable that objects of mass attract each other.  They are observable, repeatable and verifiable.  

And when it comes to self-ownership, also a priori.  For to suggest that you have the ability to exert force upon another human, to compel him to your desire, is to affirm that you believe you have ownership over yourself.  To argue against self ownership is to argue for self ownership.




> Note:
> 
> I Was going to point this out but forgot to add it to my OP. Can we please not post articles written by other people, I don’t want to read some third party POV on the issue. I want to read what my fellow members on RPF think, rather than what some dead people thought. 
> 
> Thanks.


"Note:

I want to learn about gravity.  But can we please not post articles written by Newton, I want to hear what you have to say, I don't really care what some dead guy had to say about it.

Thanks"


Really, the level of ridiculousness in some people with this subject is off the charts.

----------


## Xerographica

> Note:
> 
> I Was going to point this out but forgot to add it to my OP. Can we please not post articles written by other people, I don’t want to read some third party POV on the issue. I want to read what my fellow members on RPF think, rather than what some dead people thought. 
> 
> Thanks.


Here's what I wrote about the topic...Self-Ownership Survey.  It's interesting to see where people draw the line.

----------


## wannaberocker

> Then I'm not sure you read very hard:
> 
> _By virtue of being a man, he must use his mind to adopt ends and means; if someone aggresses against him to change his freely-selected course, this violates his nature; it violates the way he must function._
> 
> It is natural law because it is the observable nature of things.  Gravity is natural law because it is observable that objects of mass attract each other.  They are observable, repeatable and verifiable.  
> 
> And when it comes to self-ownership, also a priori.  For to suggest that you have the ability to exert force upon another human, to compel him to your desire, is to affirm that you believe you have ownership over yourself.  To argue against self ownership is to argue for self ownership.
> 
> 
> ...


Hey guy, if you don’t like the parameters i have set up in this thread. Please don’t post here. 

I would like for this thread to stay away from the Insults. If you do not think you can stay away from the insults and don’t like my parameters. Please, don’t post here then. Thanks.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Hey guy, if you don’t like the parameters i have set up in this thread. Please don’t post here. 
> 
> I would like for this thread to stay away from the Insults. If you do not think you can stay away from the insults and don’t like my parameters. Please, don’t post here then. Thanks.


Sup homey, if you don't like the words I have typed, please don't respond to them.

I don't care for your condescension and lack of intellectual honesty in debate.  If I respond with a bit of condescension myself it should hardly come as a surprise.

----------


## Cabal

> I concur.
> 
> Are we not actively opposing a corrupt state?
> 
> Isn't that a form of aggression?



There are two forms of force. Aggressive force (aggression) and defensive force. They tend to be mutually exclusive and central to NAP theory. The aggressor is the one who initiates force--according to NAP the initiator of force is at fault, and equitable defensive force in order to stop, mitigate against, or oppose the aggression is just.

The corrupt State in question you reference in your above quote is the aggressor--the State is the initiator of force. Our opposition, as you put it, is not in aggression, it is in defense.

----------


## wannaberocker

> Sup homey, if you don't like the words I have typed, please don't respond to them.
> 
> I don't care for your condescension and lack of intellectual honesty in debate.  If I respond with a bit of condescension myself it should hardly come as a surprise.


 Respect is the key in any honest discussion. You, have shown you lack respect for those who don’t agree with you. 

Please refrain from expressing your mental aggression towards me and my thread as you speak of the wonders of NAP.

----------


## wannaberocker

> There are two forms of force. Aggressive force (aggression) and defensive force. They tend to be mutually exclusive and central to NAP theory. The aggressor is the one who initiates force--according to NAP the initiator of force is at fault, and equitable defensive force in order to stop, mitigate against, or oppose the aggression is just.
> 
> The corrupt State in question you reference in your above quote is the aggressor--the State is the initiator of force. Our opposition, as you put it, is not in aggression, it is in defense.




And I will come back to the point of NAP being a very simplistic idea. It works fine when the debate is simple 1 on 1. But it starts to dissolve as soon as a third party enters the setting. If person A’s aggressive words are responsible for person B’s physical aggression? What if it involves 3 people; Where A is being aggressive towards B and C becomes aggressive towards A.

----------


## Cabal

> And I will come back to the point of NAP being a very simplistic idea. It works fine when the debate is simple 1 on 1. But it starts to dissolve as soon as a third party enters the setting. If person A’s aggressive words are responsible for person B’s physical aggression? What if it involves 3 people; Where A is being aggressive towards B and C becomes aggressive towards A.


Your hypothetical is far too vague.

What are you classifying as aggressive words?

The second scenario needs more detail.

----------


## newbitech

Non-aggression-principle must assume that all relationships are based on equitable reciprocity.  This is impossible since reciprocity is generally non-equitable.  The flaw is the assumption that people only act in their own self interest and will not act unless they believe they will directly benefit from whatever give and take is occurring in the relationship.

A real simple example of this.  I create a contract with someone to cut their grass.  The contract is very detailed on the work that needs to be done and how and when I will be paid.  I cut the grass and fulfill every little detail of the contract.  I also decide while I am there to go ahead and wipe down the dirt off the window since it has been dry all year and there's lots of dust.  

When I ask for the other side of the contract to be fulfilled, the owner of the property refuses to pay, since, I performed work on his property that was not part of the contract.  The owner considers me wiping his windows a violation of his privacy and believes I acted with malice and aggressiveness.  

Where I thought that I was going above and beyond and reciprocating my hiring over my competitors, the owner thought I was being aggressive.  How am I supposed to enforce my contract without being aggressive?  The only possible way I can get paid without CONTINUING to be aggressive, is trying to work out the relationship one on one. 

Was I wrong for violating the owners privacy?  Maybe.   Is he wrong for not paying me for the work I did do according to the contract?  Maybe.  All the wording aside, at the end of the day, an aggressive act occurred from both sides, violating the NAP.  None of it was premeditated, and neither side will find an equitable solution without being aggressive.

----------


## Cabal

You don't need to be aggressive to enforce your contract. The contract was fulfilled on your end by your own submission; thus the agreed-upon compensation is owed regardless of whether or not someone prefers clean or dirty windows. Any force you employ in order to receive the compensation wouldn't really qualify as aggression since the aggression is in the breach of contract. The dirty window was an effect of your actions, thus your responsibility in a sense. If the dude wants dirty windows, he can specify that to you for future reference (which he apparently failed to do), or he can hire someone else who won't clean his windows. 

More importantly, how likely is it that people will be more willing to engage in a dispute over a dirty window than they will be willing to shrug it off and resolve the matter peacefully? They were civil enough to draw up a contractual agreement regarding lawn service, I suspect they'll be civil enough to handle the matter of a dirty window without having to resort to absurd claims of aggression.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> *More importantly, how likely is it that people will be more willing to engage in a dispute over a dirty window than they will be willing to shrug it off and resolve the matter peacefully?* They were civil enough to draw up a contractual agreement regarding lawn service, I suspect they'll be civil enough to handle the matter of a dirty window without having to resort to absurd claims of aggression.


You've never ran a business - the severe underestimation of people's willingness to reduce/escape payment can only be explained by such a reality. People are usually only willing to "shrug it off" and "resolve it peacefully" when they get out of paying the original cost, citing their qualms as sufficient reason not to pay the full value (that was the point of the example used). Anyone that has ever offered a service knows a lot of people enjoy being civil _until they have to pay_, at which point they will find all kinds of reasons not to, even being willing to defend their claim violently. This is no big surprise, people operate according to their perceived self-interest.

Given both sides feel the contract was violated, it leaves NAP as little more than a pathetic exercise in moral relativity at that point. Of course, third parties can arbitrate (as you attempted to do by making an explanation that demanded payment, but notice how you avoided the second party's grievance), but that doesn't change the reality that one of the parties will feel they have been aggressed against regardless of the final outcome.

Welcome to humanity. Throwing monkey wrenches in ideologues since forever.

----------


## Cabal

> You've never ran a business


False.

----------


## newbitech

> You don't need to be aggressive to enforce your contract. The contract was fulfilled on your end by your own submission; thus the agreed-upon compensation is owed regardless of whether or not someone prefers clean or dirty windows. Any force you employ in order to receive the compensation wouldn't really qualify as aggression since the aggression is in the breach of contract. The dirty window was an effect of your actions, thus your responsibility in a sense. If the dude wants dirty windows, he can specify that to you for future reference (which he apparently failed to do), or he can hire someone else who won't clean his windows. 
> 
> More importantly, how likely is it that people will be more willing to engage in a dispute over a dirty window than they will be willing to shrug it off and resolve the matter peacefully? They were civil enough to draw up a contractual agreement regarding lawn service, I suspect they'll be civil enough to handle the matter of a dirty window without having to resort to absurd claims of aggression.


I didn't say I needed to be.  I do have an alternative.  I can work one on one with the guy, which probably means ignoring him for a little while.  Then call him every other day.  Send him letters.  Etc Etc.  This is still aggressive actions from the guys perspective.  So I have to try and find a way to convince him to pay up regardless of his unwillingness to do so.  

I also have to deal with his charge that I violated his privacy and breached the contract by not following the letter of the contract.  See the problem with contracts in aggressive disputes like this is that I'd spend all my time and the customers time going over every possible details and accounting for the unknown.  Sure this is what lawyers are for, but lawyers don't even do this.  They use language tricks to get around wasting time trying to predict what might happen etc..

The bottom line is a contract requires good faith on both sides regardless of the language.  If one party acts in bad faith, or is even perceived to act in bad faith, then the other party can try and claim a breach.  So now you need arbitration.  You need an outside judge.  So not only do you have this language in order to ensure that common exchanges can have some guidelines that don't require extensive details for every possibility, you also need a 3rd party to make a judgement call when that language does break down, because it will.  

So here we are trying to make NAP work because we think that is the best way, but all we are doing is creating the same system.  It's only different because its starting from scratch where everyone is acting in good faith.  The minute someone acts in bad faith, or is even perceived to be acting in bad faith, NAP is violated.  

NAP looks first for conflict, then for cause.  Conflict is a given, cause is bad faith.  Now which part of NAP determines who is right and who is wrong in a 2 party dispute?  A 3rd party.  What about a 3 party dispute? Now we have added another layer of complexity, more language, more chance for cause.  Keep adding parties. 

Now lets talk about NAP on the scale of a 1,000 person tribe or neighborhood.  We end up with elders and associations who are the monopoly of arbitration for that group.  That's right, a natural free market monopoly develops.  As it develops the need for justified use of force arises, because eventually, I will get sick of people not paying me to take care of their yards for one valid or invalid excuse or another and I will be looking to take my payment out of their ass(ets).  

The monopoly of judgement then creates ruling standards.  I get paid for the completed job, and then fined for violating the guys privacy and working on windows without a license.  If either one of us doesn't fulfill our contractual obligation, we are then under the mercy of the monopoly to decide what happens to us.  Jail?  Flogging? Ostracized?  Clearly something we don't like will be coming our way if we do not work out or problems on the one on one level.  Either keep getting stiffed, or be aggressive.  There is no way for me to NATURALLY enforce my contract without being aggressive in terms of laying out consequences reciprocating the actions of my aggressor.  

The act of adhering to NAP is always assumed, until it is broken.  Once it is broken, it doesn't come back to that relationship without further aggression, OR without the what I consider UNNATURAL and inequitable reciprocal response of, what we might say, turning the other cheek. 

And yes, I am saying involving a 3rd party to settle disputes, whether contractually agreed or not violates the fundamentals of NAP.  NAP only exists between 2 people.  So to involve a 3rd party, you now have 6 NAP adherents instead of 1.  Keep adding parties and you will see how easy it is for NAP to be consistently and constantly violated.  So if you want NAP, keep it between 2 people, and realize that when a dispute happens, when NAP is violated between those two people, the resolution is not more NAP.  The resolution is whatever you want to call the opposite of NAP. 

A-B
A-C
B-C
A-BC
B-AC
C-AB

----------


## Seraphim

NAP valid - humans flawed.

BOOM.

----------


## Cabal

> I didn't say I needed to be.  I do have an alternative.  I can work one on one with the guy, which probably means ignoring him for a little while.  Then call him every other day.  Send him letters.  Etc Etc.  This is still aggressive actions from the guys perspective.  So I have to try and find a way to convince him to pay up regardless of his unwillingness to do so. 
> 
> I also have to deal with his charge that I violated his privacy and breached the contract by not following the letter of the contract.  See the problem with contracts in aggressive disputes like this is that I'd spend all my time and the customers time going over every possible details and accounting for the unknown.  Sure this is what lawyers are for, but lawyers don't even do this.  They use language tricks to get around wasting time trying to predict what might happen etc..


Okay, how does any of this invalidate NAP. Disagreements will likely always exist, that doesn't invalidate NAP.

I mean, are we discussing this in order to pass judgment on your hypothetical, or is this supposed to disprove NAP? If the former is true, then that's fine, but I'm not particularly interested in doing so any more than I already have. If the latter is true, then I fail to see how this disproves NAP. It seems to me you're taking issue with how aggression will or will not be determined using NAP as a framework; you basically seem to be wondering about arbitration and dispute resolution. That's a legitimate subject to delve into, certainly, I don't see how this invalidates NAP.

Aggression within the framework of NAP is generally defined as the initiation of force against a person/property. Force is generally defined as behavior or action which is resisted--resistance being a defining factor of force. So, look, some disputes may end up requiring arbitration based on this framework of NAP; but I think we can safely say that, for the most part, such disputes as you've hypothesized here can, and in all likelihood, would be relatively peacefully resolved with a mere verbal exchange. I mean, you might get some unreasonable, irrational actors trying to make absurd claims about this or that in an effort to bastardize NAP in some exploitative way, but this doesn't make their assertions valid, nor does it make such disputes impossible to resolve.




> The bottom line is a contract requires good faith on both sides regardless of the language.  If one party acts in bad faith, or is even perceived to act in bad faith, then the other party can try and claim a breach.  So now you need arbitration.  You need an outside judge.  So not only do you have this language in order to ensure that common exchanges can have some guidelines that don't require extensive details for every possibility, you also need a 3rd party to make a judgement call when that language does break down, because it will.


Okay, but NAP doesn't exclude the possibility of third-party arbitration being a possible way to resolve disputes. And I think that for most contracts regarding simple matters, such as those contracts and agreements we participate in every day within our daily lives which conclude without incident, do not require any substantial amount of definition, extensive detail, or arbitration. If the parties engaging in a contract with one another express mutual desire for some sort of extensive contract, then I suspect they'll work that out one way or another; and if a dispute arises from that situation, then... a dispute arises, and will be solved one way or another; and as a result consequences (either positive, negative, or both) will emerge from the resolution. 




> NAP looks first for conflict, then for cause.  Conflict is a given, cause is bad faith.  Now which part of NAP determines who is right and who is wrong in a 2 party dispute?  A 3rd party.  What about a 3 party dispute? Now we have added another layer of complexity, more language, more chance for cause.  Keep adding parties.


Well, NAP doesn't really look for anything, NAP is just a fairly simple moral principle which happens to be universally applicable and logically consistent that generally tells us what most of us already know on some level. A third party is not necessary to resolve a dispute, it is simply a possible solution when an agreement cannot otherwise be reached between the initial actors. Again, you seem to be taking issue with the practical possibilities for arbitration and dispute resolution as opposed to taking issue with NAP. Theorizing about the practical possibilities of dispute resolution and arbitration is all fine and good, but this does not invalidate NAP.

----------


## kuckfeynes

To argue against NAP is essentially to argue against free will. One of the oldest philosophy debates in the book. As usual, the limit is language, and the devil is in the definitions.

However, I think most people that take issue with it do so not because they are hardcore determinists, but rather because they see that the logical conclusion of it is free-market everything: courts, defense, roads... aka anarcho-capitalism. And that is somewhere they are unwilling to go, so the inquiry stops there without any further investigation into the deterministic implications of this rejection.

Personally I believe I own myself, and I believe I have free will. But I realize those are just beliefs... Anyone is free to disagree.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> False.


Not one that ever dealt with customers on a regular basis, apparently. What service were you _ever_ responsible for that you _never_ actually ran into an individual that tried to reduce/escape payment for some reason?

This ought to be good.




> So, look, some disputes may end up requiring arbitration based on this framework of NAP; but I think we can safely say that, for the most part, such disputes as you've hypothesized here can, and in all likelihood, would be relatively peacefully resolved with a mere verbal exchange. I mean, you might get some unreasonable, irrational actors trying to make absurd claims about this or that in an effort to bastardize NAP in some exploitative way, but this doesn't make their assertions valid, nor does it make such disputes impossible to resolve.


Those "unreasonable, irrational actors" feel they are the ones aggressed against, meaning their course of action is thoroughly rational as far as they're concerned.

"Unreasonable, irrational actors" that would "bastardize NAP in some exploitative way" also exist, and for an obvious reason - they are acting in their perceived self-interest. Never mind the obvious fact this would actually make it a rational endeavor, but let not the obvious stop you!




> Okay, but NAP doesn't exclude the possibility of third-party arbitration being a possible way to resolve disputes.


Theoretically, no. Practically, yes. Each party would want arbitration by individuals most sympathetic to them, meaning a consensus agreement is not likely. Also, given there is to be no coercion in making either party submit to arbitration, you're left at loggerheads.




> NAP is just a fairly simple moral principle...


About the most useful thing you've said yet, and you should have ended there. Simple indeed, and substantially lacking in utility when addressing problems between individuals.

----------


## fisharmor

> And I will come back to the point of NAP being a very simplistic idea. It works fine when the debate is simple 1 on 1. But it starts to dissolve as soon as a third party enters the setting. If person A’s aggressive words are responsible for person B’s physical aggression? What if it involves 3 people; Where A is being aggressive towards B and C becomes aggressive towards A.


There's a three or even four party example every single one of us has experienced in the past.
Remember back to when you were a child, and got into an argument with your brother/sister/another kid, possibly multiple kids.
Let's say it's a classic like the other kid gave you a wet willy, so you smacked him in the face.
Then the "adult" shows up.  All the "adult" knows is that he's got kids fighting.  He separates them, perhaps puts them each in a corner.
"But", you pipe up, "HE STARTED IT!!"
And what's the usual answer:
_"I don't care who started it, I'M FINISHING IT."_

And so, that "adult" has set the pattern for "justice" in our society.
We have "adults" called legislators who make the rules, which largely consist of abstractions like "no fighting", "no loud noises", "no breaking things".
We're supposed to be enlightened because the "adult" who makes the rules is not the same "adult" who enforces the rules, but the enforcement is the exact same regardless of who does the enforcing, and this enforcement is identical to how the rules are enforced by that adult with the fighting kids.
_"I don't care who started it, I'm finishing it."_

The state quite simply doesn't give a flying $#@! through a rolling donut who started the argument.  
All the state knows is that the state's rules have been broken.
They might give us the appearance of wanting to be "fair", but how does that "fairness" measure up?
If another adult attacks you on the street, and you shoot him dead, is the state (outside of Florida that is) really that interested in finding out whether it was justified?
Or are you going to end up emptying your coffers trying to stay out of jail at that point?

This is the context that we're trying to discuss NAP in.  It just doesn't work.  We have all been too tainted by our indoctrination that the above situation is somehow "fair".
It's not fair - it's just about the least fair thing the world has ever seen since the collapse of the USSR.

In order to understand NAP you need to remember being a kid, being told by an adult that "he's finishing it", and you have to remember how big a crock of $#@! you thought that was.
If you didn't think it was a crock of $#@! (and weren't he one starting it), and you truly do care more about "keeping the peace" than _actually figuring out who is breaking the peace and doing something about it_, then NAP probably isn't for you.

----------


## fisharmor

> You don't need to be aggressive to enforce your contract.





> You've never ran a business - the severe  underestimation of people's willingness to reduce/escape payment can  only be explained by such a reality. People are usually only willing to  "shrug it off" and "resolve it peacefully" when they get out of paying  the original cost, citing their qualms as sufficient reason not to pay  the full value (that was the point of the example used). Anyone that has  ever offered a service knows a lot of people enjoy being civil _until they have to pay_,  at which point they will find all kinds of reasons not to, even being  willing to defend their claim violently. This is no big surprise, people  operate according to their perceived self-interest.


There's a free-market method of enforcing contracts that actually dates back to pre-history.
And, interestingly enough, was an important factor in the established laws of stateless Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surety_bond

----------


## fisharmor

> Not one that ever dealt with customers on a regular basis, apparently. What service were you _ever_ responsible for that you _never_ actually ran into an individual that tried to reduce/escape payment for some reason?
> 
> This ought to be good.


I don't employ business for services that haven't procured a bond.

----------


## Sam I am

> There's a three or even four party example every single one of us has experienced in the past.
> Remember back to when you were a child, and got into an argument with your brother/sister/another kid, possibly multiple kids.
> Let's say it's a classic like the other kid gave you a wet willy, so you smacked him in the face.
> Then the "adult" shows up.  All the "adult" knows is that he's got kids fighting.  He separates them, perhaps puts them each in a corner.
> "But", you pipe up, "HE STARTED IT!!"
> And what's the usual answer:
> _"I don't care who started it, I'M FINISHING IT."_
> 
> And so, that "adult" has set the pattern for "justice" in our society.
> ...



^^ 
Proof that it is *childish* to think of NAP as a solve-all policy

----------


## fisharmor

> ^^ 
> Proof that it is *childish* to think of NAP as a solve-all policy


Yep, it's childish to think that finding out who initiated the aggression is at all important.
The important thing is to squash dispute.  
Disputes can't possibly ever be valid.
End all disputes using as much violence as possible, indiscriminately.

I think it's more childish to solve every single problem with more violence, personally.
How do you feel about the wars, Sam?

----------


## Sam I am

> Yep, it's childish to think that finding out who initiated the aggression is at all important.
> The important thing is to squash dispute.  
> Disputes can't possibly ever be valid.
> End all disputes using as much violence as possible, indiscriminately.
> 
> I think it's more childish to solve every single problem with more violence, personally.
> How do you feel about the wars, Sam?



Contradict yourself much?  

"he started it" is always an excuse for using violence to solve a problem.

Saving face or Revenge is never a justification for continuing a fight.

----------


## Cabal

> ^^ 
> Proof that it is *childish* to think of NAP as a solve-all policy


NAP isn't meant to solve anything, technically. NAP is a framework, logically consistent with property rights, with which to make an ethical judgement regarding a dispute, or the actions of conflicting individuals. It's a principle by which we can determine moral or right action. NAP doesn't say, "this problem should be solved this way," NAP says, "we should find non-violent solutions to problems, as to avoid initiating violence."

Moreover, the non-initiation of force is universal to humans; it is an objective truth. It is impossible for a human being to desire the initiation of force, as the initiation of force, by definition, implies resistance. If the initiation of force is no longer resisted, it can no longer be said to be an initiation of force. So when you reject NAP, you're essentially rejecting an objective truth about human beings.

You are correct in your assessment that NAP is child's play though. Even children can, and often do, grasp the basic concept of NAP--I suspect most of us as children were taught not to steal, not to hit, and to respect other's property, etc. at a fairly early age. I know I was. The fact that some adults have difficulty grasping that which a child can easily grasp is rather unfortunate. In actuality, most adults still observe NAP rather constantly in their daily lives too; for some odd reason they just don't hold the State to the same standard they hold all of their other associations. It's a rather glaring double-standard.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> *Moreover, the non-initiation of force is universal to humans; it is an objective truth.* It is impossible for a human being to desire the initiation of force, as the initiation of force, by definition, implies resistance. If the initiation of force is no longer resisted, it can no longer be said to be an initiation of force. So when you reject NAP, you're essentially rejecting an objective truth about human beings.


Both a _fallacy of reification_ and utter nonsense. Impossible for humans to desire the initiation of force? Have you seen human history?

Humans, throughout history, have weighed whether they want to initiate force based on a risk assessment and expected gain.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> There's a free-market method of enforcing contracts that actually dates back to pre-history.
> And, interestingly enough, was an important factor in the established laws of stateless Ireland.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surety_bond


Relevant to free market solutions to problem resolution.

Not relevant to the proposed NAP dilemma. Notice the third party being contractually necessary.

----------


## Cabal

> Both a _fallacy of reification_ and utter nonsense. Impossible for humans to desire the initiation of force? Have you seen human history?
> 
> Humans, throughout history, have weighed whether they want to initiate force based on a risk assessment and expected gain.


Perhaps I should have been more clear for you.

It is impossible for humans to desire the initiation of force upon themselves--this is what I was referring to, which I admittedly failed to explicitly specifcy. It is universal that humans desire the non-initiation of force upon themselves. This is the objective truth I made reference to before.

Morality is an examination of right action / behavior; it isn't necessary, it is optional--someone can choose to be moral or immoral. NAP doesn't say it is impossible to murder someone; NAP says it is morally wrong to murder someone. So the fact that humans have initiated force against one another doesn't mean that NAP is an invalid moral theory, nor does it mean that the initiation of aggression is a valid moral theory.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Perhaps I should have been more clear for you.
> 
> It is impossible for humans to desire the initiation of force upon themselves--this is what I was referring to, which I admittedly failed to explicitly specifcy. It is universal that humans desire the non-initiation of force upon themselves. This is the objective truth I made reference to before.


...Masochists say, "Forget about us?"

It's not an objective truth.




> Morality is an examination of right action / behavior; it isn't necessary, it is optional--someone can choose to be moral or immoral. NAP doesn't say it is impossible to murder someone; NAP says it is morally wrong to murder someone. So the fact that humans have initiated force against one another doesn't mean that NAP is an invalid moral theory, nor does it mean that the initiation of aggression is a valid moral theory.


...Ever stop to notice the validity of a moral theory is entirely dependent on what assumptions an individual wishes to accept as true, that they are not at all compulsory assumptions for others to accept? They can, of course, be flatly rejected for any number of reasons due to a lack of objective truth. Moral theories are rational pursuits, but they certainly aren't objective representations of reality.

----------


## Cabal

> ...Masochists say, "Forget about us?"
> 
> It's not an objective truth.


As was explained in my previous post, if the force is desired, it can no longer properly be referred to as force, as force implies resistance by definition--you would not need to force something if there was no resistance to your will. Given that masochists desire whatever the action they derive pleasure from, this cannot qualify as force in these instances so long as it remains desired. In the case of masochism, or D/S relationships, this can further be evidenced by the common practice of "safe words" or "safe phrases" which are used to indicate that the submissive partner no longer desires the action which is taking place. Feigned resistance is not actual resistance.

So it remains objectively true that humans have a universal desire for the non-initiation of force. If you want to be subject to an action that would otherwise qualify as force, it can no longer be accurately described as force due to the fact that you desire it. If you feel you have an adequate refutation to this statement, I would invite you to actually elaborate on your reasoning with regard to the foundation of the statement rather than hint at some point and expect me to respond to that.




> ...Ever stop to notice the validity of a moral theory is entirely dependent on what assumptions an individual wishes to accept as true, that they are not at all compulsory assumptions for others to accept? They can, of course, be flatly rejected for any number of reasons due to a lack of objective truth. Moral theories are rational pursuits, but they certainly aren't objective representations of reality.


Truth may be relative, but that does not make it subjective. The temperature at a certain location within the city of Dallas at exactly 12:00 pm on a given day can accurately be measured in Fahrenheit degrees with an accurate thermometer, and the reading may be said to be an objective truth. Relative to the temperature from the day prior, we may say that it is true that today's temperature reading at 12:00pm is warmer or cooler than yesterday's temperature reading, and that may also be described as an objective truth. Temperature readings are not subjective, even though they may be relative.

Regardless of how much you may claim that the temperature reading from above is 89 degrees F, if the accurate thermometer being used to determine the temperature reads 95 degrees F, you are objectively wrong about the temperature of that location. What an individual wishes to accept as true does not determine what is true relative to objective reality.

The accuracy--the truth or falsehood--of a moral theory may be tested. The truth of a moral theory, like any other proposed theory, may be measured relative to its conformity to objective reality. Now, we may not have thermometers to determine whether a moral theory is true or false in the same way that we have thermometers to determine temperature, but we do have other methods with which to test the validity, or invalidity, of a moral proposition.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> As was explained in my previous post, if the force is desired, it can no longer properly be referred to as force, as force implies resistance by definition--you would not need to force something if there was no resistance to your will. Given that masochists desire whatever the action they derive pleasure from, this cannot qualify as force in these instances so long as it remains desired. In the case of masochism, or D/S relationships, this can further be evidenced by the common practice of "safe words" or "safe phrases" which are used to indicate that the submissive partner no longer desires the action which is taking place. Feigned resistance is not actual resistance.


That intellectual backflip is ridiculous (the idea that desired force is some kind of pseudo-force is farcical). It remains force, and it doesn't have to be _requested_ for it to be _desired_ (it can even be resisted!) . Poor knowledge of masochism, by the way - what you're talking about is roleplay (safe words), not so much actual masochism.




> So it remains objectively true that humans have a universal desire for the non-initiation of force. If you want to be subject to an action that would otherwise qualify as force, it can no longer be accurately described as force due to the fact that you desire it. If you feel you have an adequate refutation to this statement, I would invite you to actually elaborate on your reasoning with regard to the foundation of the statement rather than hint at some point and expect me to respond to that.


It is still demonstratively false. 

Never mind that even aside from masochists, you have individuals that simply like the challenge overcoming force represents, even challenges initially not welcomed. Competitiveness is a common trait in humans, afterall, and speaking personally I can say I greatly enjoy overcoming adversity.

Bottom line: force is not defined by qualitative terms like desired, this being self-evident by you trying to prevert the understanding of force to try to save face.




> Truth may be relative, but that does not make it subjective. The temperature at a certain location within the city of Dallas at exactly 12:00 pm on a given day can accurately be measured in Fahrenheit degrees with an accurate thermometer, and the reading may be said to be an objective truth. Relative to the temperature from the day prior, we may say that it is true that today's temperature reading at 12:00pm is warmer or cooler than yesterday's temperature reading, and that may also be described as an objective truth. Temperature readings are not subjective, even though they may be relative.


Equating the temperature to morality is asinine. Full stop. The closest you'd get to an accurate analogy is discussing with various individuals at what point they feel hot/cold/comfortable, but as I don't deal in analogies it dies there.

Morality isn't objective, is demonstratively not objective by just examining the belief of various individuals. That leaves morality as a rational pursuit due to its usefulness but, and I repeat, *it is not objective, and every time you treat it as such it is a fallacy of reification.*

----------


## osan

> Regarding Self Ownership; where do we get the belief that self-ownership is a natural right?


Read this: http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...ee-living.html

The answer should be clear from there.

----------


## osan

> NAP is a very incomplete philosophy, and it is in no way a substitute for a system of laws.


It is not a philosophy.  It is a consequence of the acceptance of the Cardinal Postulate, which states:

All men hold equal Just Claims to Life.

This is the properly formulated presumption of human equality.  If we accept this, the NAP follows axiomatically and is explained *here*.




> In order for some people to make it work, they describe non-violent acts, such as theft as "aggression".


Well let us take a look at one of the definitions of "violence":
*3.*an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or *power*, as *against rights* or laws: _to take over a government by violence._

By this definition, theft is most definitely violent as one is employing power to violate the property right of another.  Your presumption is demonstrated false and therefore this attempt to defeat the NAP fails.




> They might have to go so far as to consider inconsiderate but not necessarily malicious acts, such as blasting loud music at night in a crowded neighborhood as "aggression"


Or they might not.  That said, when blasting loud music at night is interfering with the ability of some people to sleep in peace, one is violating their right to that peace.  One's right to blast loud music ends at the ears of those who wish not to hear it.  Done.




> It also gets very complicated when you consider degree of aggression.  If someone shoves you as they walk by, does that justify a higher degree of violence in retaliation?


You will have to do better than this to demonstrate complexity.  Are you suggesting that complexity invalidates?

----------


## Sam I am

> Or they might not.  That said, when blasting loud music at night is interfering with the ability of some people to sleep in peace, one is violating their right to that peace.  One's right to blast loud music ends at the ears of those who wish not to hear it.  Done.


Well, What about that guy next door trying to stop you from playing your music?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> NAP is a very incomplete philosophy, and it is in no way a substitute for a system of laws.


You are mis-identifying the purpose of NAP.

NAP is not (& cannot be) a "substitute for a system of laws." It is an abstract principle of justice, from which myriad systems of laws may be derived.

Any particular system of laws derived from NAP (or any other principle of justice) may be incomplete, but that is not a flaw with NAP - it is a flaw with that particular system of laws.




> In order for some people to make it work, they describe non-violent acts, such as theft as "aggression".  They might have to go so far as to consider inconsiderate but not necessarily malicious acts, such as blasting loud music at night in a crowded neighborhood as "aggression"
> 
> It also gets very complicated when you consider degree of aggression.  If someone shoves you as they walk by, does that justify a higher degree of violence in retaliation?


These are all things that *any* system of laws must cope with, *regardless* of what principle(s) of justice that system of laws is based upon.

----------


## ProIndividual

I agree the NAP is flawed, but only where it coerces you and is not the "path of least coercion" when no non-coercive path is available (like when you're starving to death and stealing is the only way to eat...stealing is unethical still, but dying is a greater coercion, so you will predictably steal). However, it is most useful for ethics (from one point of view anyways) and the deriving of laws. 

I would say, as others have attempted to explain, that there is in fact a Universally Prefered Behavior for humans...no one wants to be raped, murdered, stole from, or conned. All of these things are by definition done against your will. Masochists may want to be abused, even killed, but that's assisted suicide, not murder. You may want to be beaten and hate-$#@!ed, but that's S&M rough sex, not rape. You may wish to steal and be stole from, but that's an agreement not an unwilling condition, logically. You may con and be conned, but if all are willing participants, there is no crime.

The point is the NAP simple says no UNWILLING participants can have aggression INITIATED against them (and some take it to the extreme of pacifism, but there is no legal standard that would forbid self defense). You are always free to commit suicide, have S&M sex, to allow folks to take things from you, and allow people to talk you into stuff you KNOW is a bad idea. None of that violates the NAP.

But again, it is not an end-all be-all in ethics. It never adresses where it coerces you, and how to handle those extreme situations (like starvation). For it to be a complete theory it must have either exceptions to the rule in order to deal with this problem (which frankly ruins the idea we only need one simple rule in order to have an ethical theory that is coherent and consistent), or it must alter the single rule to fit better into all circumstances, moderate and extreme. To do the latter you have think outside of the deontological and consequentialist paradigm.

This is why I propose the "path of least coercion" as an alternative to the NAP and Utility. In moderate circumstances it is identical to the NAP, but in the extreme circumstances it deviates to a more logical (albeit less ethical), more predictable and realistic theory.

----------


## Exiled_LFOD

> I think most libertarians consider NAP to essentially be a priori.


This same thread at the Mises.org forum would likely have more in depth responses discussing lenses one can view the NAP:




> First, I will describe property rights, how they are formed, and how he contradicts himself with regard to property rights by examining the ethics involved in argumentation.
> 
> Argumentation itself is an a priori true axiom. One cannot argue that one cannot argue (without, at least, arguing the opposite to be true).The a priori of argumentation (cf. K Apel) states that actors are capable of argument and therefore understand the importance of validity claims (one cannot claim that this is invalid without, at least, claiming the opposite to be valid). Indeed, a logical implication of argument is that there are certain criteria that an argument must meet in order for it to be accepted as true. The criteria by which an argument may be justified -norms- constitutes the logic of justifying argument, ethics.
> 
> The first criteria an argument must meet for even formal acceptance as a norm is Kant’s, the golden rule of ethics, categorical imperative. The first test of Kant’s Categorical Imperative being the test of universalization: a norm must be something that can be done by everyone at once without generating logical contradiction and it must be capable of being accepted by everyone. If someone were to argue that "Everyone with a certain hair style must perform 100 jumping jacks every Sunday," then this norm would be not capable of being accepted by everyone and would fail to be a general law for simply formal reasons.
> 
> But further realize that if argumentation is true a priori, then ethics must necessarily be valid a priori as without ethics there would be no argumentation- how else would anyone know what is valid or not? It is likewise important that the argument one makes is not contradicted by the ethic by which he makes it. Such an action would constitute a performative contradiction.
> 
> Performative contradictions are not the formal contradictions known to logic. Contradictions in this manner are in the form that one proposes Q, but the ethic by which one makes such proposal presupposes the legitimacy of not-Q. As such, one cannot argue that “No one ever argues” as this would obviously be refuted by the fact that this one person "justified" this proposition through argument. Performative contradictions nonetheless could be considered as a formal contradiction if one were to understand the significance that ethics bears on argument by detailing the necessary presuppositions of argument as in the beginning of a geometrical proof (e.g. Two perpendicular lines form a right angle can be “assumed” as a matter of definition). So if one were to write down or state all necessary assumptions, then it could qualify as a formal contradiction.
> ...


When I see comments like these:




> NAP is a very incomplete philosophy, and it is in no way a substitute for a system of laws.
> 
> In order for some people to make it work, they describe non-violent acts, such as theft as "aggression". They might have to go so far as to consider inconsiderate but not necessarily malicious acts, such as blasting loud music at night in a crowded neighborhood as "aggression"
> 
> It also gets very complicated when you consider degree of aggression. If someone shoves you as they walk by, does that justify a higher degree of violence in retaliation?





> That’s true. My question is not really "Why is aggression bad". It’s more in the line of how can NAP be considered a valid philosophy when we know that justification for different degrees of aggression are subjective.





> NAP is simply a guide. Not all aggression is wrong, and not all sins are "aggression".





> I concur.
> 
> Are we not actively opposing a corrupt state?
> 
> Isn't that a form of aggression?


I am thinking to myself... Ron has mentioned the NAP so often...

Now this post on the other hand:




> I agree the NAP is flawed


Is arguable, because an alternate idea is suggested (albeit an arguably less ethical one).

----------


## ProIndividual

> Now this post on the other hand:
> 
> 
> 
> Is arguable, because an alternate idea is suggested (albeit an arguably less ethical one).


I agree, it is less ethical in extreme circmstances. We won't even have to debate that at all, my friend. I just argue it's more practical, realistic, and less coercive where no non-coercive path exists. Like with starvation, and stealing food...the greater coercion is dying, clearly. So should you steal? Yes. You need to take the path of least coercion...and if a non-coercive path exists, then of course you would take that path, but since it doesn't, you must seek to reduce coercion ethically. Is this less ethical than not stealing, and just dying from hunger? Yes. But is it less coercive? Yes. I think the latter in extreme circumstances (where no non-coercive path exists) must be taken (and predictably will be taken by rational people - the grand majority of people).

The fact I admit it's an unethical act means it is also a crime. But is it the same as stealing for the fun of it? I argue the starvation is a mitigating and corroborating circumstance that calls for a lesser punishment than just stealing for fun. Although the unethical act is probably equal, the crime is not. For that reason, the thief who stole out of starvation will owe renumeration of possibly a lesser amount and no retributive penalties, whereas the thief who stole for fun will owe possibly a larger renumerative penalty and also possibly a retributive one (depending on if your legal theory includes retributive justice or not).

I would never suggest that acting unethically in order to limit coercion is not a crime and is not due to be set right once the extreme circumstance has passed and non-coercive paths become once again available.

----------


## Exiled_LFOD

> I agree, it is less ethical in extreme circmstances. We won't even have to debate that at all, my friend. I just argue it's more practical, realistic, and less coercive where no non-coercive path exists. Like with starvation, and stealing food...the greater coercion is dying, clearly. So should you steal? Yes. You need to take the path of least coercion...and if a non-coercive path exists, then of course you would take that path, but since it doesn't, you must seek to reduce coercion ethically. Is this less ethical than not stealing, and just dying from hunger? Yes. But is it less coercive? Yes. I think the latter in extreme circumstances (where no non-coercive path exists) must be taken (and predictably will be taken by rational people - the grand majority of people).
> 
> The fact I admit it's an unethical act means it is also a crime. But is it the same as stealing for the fun of it? I argue the starvation is a mitigating and corroborating circumstance that calls for a lesser punishment than just stealing for fun. Although the unethical act is probably equal, the crime is not. For that reason, the thief who stole out of starvation will owe renumeration of possibly a lesser amount and no retributive penalties, whereas the thief who stole for fun will owe possibly a larger renumerative penalty and also possibly a retributive one (depending on if your legal theory includes retributive justice or not).
> 
> I would never suggest that acting unethically in order to limit coercion is not a crime and is not due to be set right once the extreme circumstance has passed and non-coercive paths become once again available.


A couple excerpts from my own unpublished works:




> In the context of a beginning, is it reasonable to envision an original applied force originating at a point in space? Is it reasonable to envision the work of creation resulting from an applied force exceeding resistance in a multidimensional context?
> 
> Dimension is defined as the minimum number of coordinates to specify a point. A point has no minimum number of coordinates as a point can appear anywhere. A line is a one dimensional construct whereas it takes one coordinate to identify one point on a line. Surface is a two dimensional construct whereas it takes two coordinates to identify one point on a surface.  Volume is a three dimensional construct whereas it takes three coordinates to identify a point withing volume. Time is a four dimensional construct whereas it takes four coordinates to identify mass in motion.
> 
> If an original applied force exceeded resistance resulting in work would not this work be observed in a reference to motion the same way we observe work resulting from a difference in voltage, temperature, pressure, etc.?  Is it reasonable to believe man is capable of explaining any motion of work resulting form an original applied force exceeding resistance? Is it reasonable to believe man is incapable of explaining an original applied force utilizing senses than can only appear to perceive in reference to motion?
> 
> I define nature as a system of work resulting from the imbalance of an original applied force exceeding resistance. I consider observations the
> universe is mostly comprised of matter sensible, pun intended.





> Libertarians may have a positive, negative, or zero charge, and are highly reactive radicals running free in the body of society causing degeneration in the belief of State.
> 
> States are just as unnatural as the universe since both are widely believed to be based on a concept of an original applied force exceeding resistance. In the fairytale titled Kingdom of State, force is allegedly applied to protect the flock of good. The State is truly man's invention of Heaven on Earth.
> 
> The opposite of force is resistance. The concept of least resistance can be restated as cooperation. Cooperation leads to equilibrium whereas the fruit of coercion is disequilibrium. Difference in voltage results in electrical current.  Difference in pressure results in flowing water. It is imbalance that results in work performed in nature.


I consider what you describe as a least path of coercion to be natural observable action similar to the concept of electricity following the least path of resistance.  At face value I personally consider path of least coercion to be less ethical however I am not prepared to argue it.  I will reflect on it.  Like Jeff responded recently I do believe subsequent generations can conceive even better ideas than their predecessors.  That is how civilization and technology have evolved.

----------


## ProIndividual

> A couple excerpts from my own unpublished works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider what you describe as a least path of coercion to be natural observable action similar to the concept of electricity following the least path of resistance.  At face value I personally consider path of least coercion to be less ethical however I am not prepared to argue it.  I will reflect on it.  Like Jeff responded recently I do believe subsequent generations can conceive even better ideas than their predecessors.  That is how civilization and technology have evolved.


That's extremely interesting and I think it has validity...I never thought of it this way. And again, you don't have to argue that it's less ethical...it is admittedly less ethical, but only in extreme circumstances. In moderate circumstances (which I define as circumstances where paths of non-coercion exist - the vast majority of circumstances day to day for humanity) my theory is identical to the NAP. Where it differs is only in extreme circumstances (where no non-coercive path exists, and only paths of coercion are present, some more coercive than others, or possibly even several equally coercive paths). These extreme circumstances then abandon rule based ethics (deontological or rule utilitarianist consequentialism) and operate strictly on consequentialist Utilitarianism (what lessens human pain and increases human happiness/pleasure overall). This is now, in the extreme circumstances only, less ethical. But I argue in extreme circumstances (as I have defined them) the goal should not be non-coercion or non-initiation of force, but instead causing the least coercion possible via initiated agression. Why? Because like in the starvation example, the NAP would coerce you more (by making you starve to death) than stealing food from your victim would coerce the victim of theft. Even if the entire world is starving to death, since the coercion is equal for all parties, you would be in a neutral coercion impasse, where stealing the food is equal to not stealing it, as it will kill someone...so you'll have nothing keeping you from self preservation and the theft (assuming you're rational and not suicidal).

This doesn't make the acts in extreme circumstances ethical...it actually means they're unethical and criminal. But they are criminal with mitigating and corroborating circumstances that make their penalties via law much less severe than if these crimes were commited in moderate (as I have defined them) circumstances. I think of this a bit like Civil Disobedience to the NAP. I personally believe the deontological/consequentialist paradigm is too simplified for real world ethics given some circumstances are extreme, and others are moderate.

I'm intrigued by your comparison to electrical current choosing the path of least resistance...and I think might be a perfect metaphor actually.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> My question is not really "Why is aggression bad". Its more in the line of *how can NAP be considered a valid philosophy when we know that justification for different degrees of aggression are subjective.*


The values placed on goods & services by buyers & sellers in free exchange are entirely subjective.

But the fact that value is not objective does not mean that FME (free-market economics) is invalid.

Likewise, the fact that the assessment of "degrees of aggression" is not objective does not mean that NAP is invalid.

On the level of abstract principle, FME is just the application of NAP to economics (or, conversely, NAP is just the application of FME to justice).

To dismiss NAP becuase evaluations of "degrees of aggression" are subjective makes no more sense than to reject FME becasue evaluations of goods & services are subjective.

----------


## Exiled_LFOD

> That's extremely interesting and I think it has validity...I never thought of it this way. And again, you don't have to argue that it's less ethical...it is admittedly less ethical, but only in extreme circumstances. In moderate circumstances (which I define as circumstances where paths of non-coercion exist - the vast majority of circumstances day to day for humanity) my theory is identical to the NAP. Where it differs is only in extreme circumstances (where no non-coercive path exists, and only paths of coercion are present, some more coercive than others, or possibly even several equally coercive paths). These extreme circumstances then abandon rule based ethics (deontological or rule utilitarianist consequentialism) and operate strictly on consequentialist Utilitarianism (what lessens human pain and increases human happiness/pleasure overall). This is now, in the extreme circumstances only, less ethical. But I argue in extreme circumstances (as I have defined them) the goal should not be non-coercion or non-initiation of force, but instead causing the least coercion possible via initiated agression. Why? Because like in the starvation example, the NAP would coerce you more (by making you starve to death) than stealing food from your victim would coerce the victim of theft. Even if the entire world is starving to death, since the coercion is equal for all parties, you would be in a neutral coercion impasse, where stealing the food is equal to not stealing it, as it will kill someone...so you'll have nothing keeping you from self preservation and the theft (assuming you're rational and not suicidal).
> 
> This doesn't make the acts in extreme circumstances ethical...it actually means they're unethical and criminal. But they are criminal with mitigating and corroborating circumstances that make their penalties via law much less severe than if these crimes were commited in moderate (as I have defined them) circumstances. I think of this a bit like Civil Disobedience to the NAP. I personally believe the deontological/consequentialist paradigm is too simplified for real world ethics given some circumstances are extreme, and others are moderate.
> 
> I'm intrigued by your comparison to electrical current choosing the path of least resistance...and I think might be a perfect metaphor actually.


Specifically what would be the ethical arguments of:




> The concept of least resistance can be restated as cooperation.


This is a silly pulling something out of thin air and an observation in which I am not going to attempt to argue but...

There are distinctions between a property owner who 1) who erects a fence, or 2) posts a no trespassing sign, or 3) does nothing for the purposes of resisting trespassing but there is no distinction with regards to whether or not one is the owner of property or whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Specifically what would be the ethical arguments of:
> 
> "The concept of least resistance can be restated as cooperation. "
> 
> This is a silly pulling something out of thin air and an observation in which I am not going to attempt to argue but...
> 
> There are distinctions between a property owner who 1) who erects a fence, or 2) posts a no trespassing sign, or 3) does nothing for the purposes of resisting trespassing but there is no distinction with regards to whether or not one is the owner of property or whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner.


I might misunderstand your questions...but I'll give it a shot.

I would say cooperation is voluntary, thereby ethical. The concept of least resistance being copperation makes sense, as the "path of least coercion" in this case would be a non-coercive path here. To cooperate is voluntary, thereby non-coervice, and therefore a path of lesser coercion than a coercive path, logically. Anytime you have a non-coercive path, it is a least coercive path and fits my theory in terms of what I defined as "moderate circumstances". However, if cooperation is not available as a choice, or ends up coercing you more than acting with aggression, then a coercive (but as least coercive as available) path would be chosen instead. This latter case I defined as "extreme circumstance", and is not ethical, albeit preferable. It is criminal, but less punishment would be perscribed under law due to the mitigating and corroborating circumstances in the "extreme circumstance" you faced.

I hope that answered your question.

In your latter hypotheticals, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get across. I may be reading it wrong, or missed something obvious. I'd ask you to help me out. What I'm seeing is 3 property owners, one with a fence, one with just a sign, and one with neither. There is no distinction as to who owns the property in the last case. The part I'm confused about (I think) is the "there is no distinction with regards to...whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner".

I mean, altering their property would violate the NAP in moderate circumstances, but in extreme circumstances might be a path of least coercion. For example, someone is freezing to death in the winter and needs a tree from one of these properties to burn for warmth. It's freeze to death, or steal firewood. The path of least coercion, albeit ciminal and unethical, is to steal the wood. This will need to be renumerated by law after the extreme circumstance has passed. This would likely be renumeration including the value of the wood plus some extra in money, wood, trade, or labor in order to compensate the property owner (who is a victim of theft) for his losses in time, wood, and effort to get renumeration. How the property was protected would largely not matter at all. The fence, sign, or neither is simply a preference of the owner that has no bearing on the crime itself...otherwise we're blaming the victim to some regard (like saying a girl in a short skirt deserved rape more than one in long pants).

If I didn't get that right, help me out, and I'll be happy to re-apply the theory for you

----------


## Exiled_LFOD

> I might misunderstand your questions...but I'll give it a shot.
> 
> I would say cooperation is voluntary, thereby ethical. The concept of least resistance being copperation makes sense, as the "path of least coercion" in this case would be a non-coercive path here. To cooperate is voluntary, thereby non-coervice, and therefore a path of lesser coercion than a coercive path, logically. Anytime you have a non-coercive path, it is a least coercive path and fits my theory in terms of what I defined as "moderate circumstances". However, if cooperation is not available as a choice, or ends up coercing you more than acting with aggression, then a coercive (but as least coercive as available) path would be chosen instead. This latter case I defined as "extreme circumstance", and is not ethical, albeit preferable. It is criminal, but less punishment would be perscribed under law due to the mitigating and corroborating circumstances in the "extreme circumstance" you faced.
> 
> I hope that answered your question.
> 
> In your latter hypotheticals, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get across. I may be reading it wrong, or missed something obvious. I'd ask you to help me out. What I'm seeing is 3 property owners, one with a fence, one with just a sign, and one with neither. There is no distinction as to who owns the property in the last case. The part I'm confused about (I think) is the "there is no distinction with regards to...whether owned property has been modified against the express wishes of a property owner".
> 
> I mean, altering their property would violate the NAP in moderate circumstances, but in extreme circumstances might be a path of least coercion. For example, someone is freezing to death in the winter and needs a tree from one of these properties to burn for warmth. It's freeze to death, or steal firewood. The path of least coercion, albeit ciminal and unethical, is to steal the wood. This will need to be renumerated by law after the extreme circumstance has passed. This would likely be renumeration including the value of the wood plus some extra in money, wood, trade, or labor in order to compensate the property owner (who is a victim of theft) for his losses in time, wood, and effort to get renumeration. How the property was protected would largely not matter at all. The fence, sign, or neither is simply a preference of the owner that has no bearing on the crime itself...otherwise we're blaming the victim to some regard (like saying a girl in a short skirt deserved rape more than one in long pants).
> ...


As I said I am not prepared to argue anything just throwing out unqualified thoughts..  To throw out a hypothetical or two off the top of my head.

Surely nude sun bathers do not deserve a trespass even if there is no sign or fence? 

Dumpster diving?

I would also suggest you throw up a thread over at Mises and see what kind of responses you get.

----------


## ProIndividual

> As I said I am not prepared to argue anything just throwing out unqualified thoughts..  To throw out a hypothetical or two off the top of my head.
> 
> Surely nude sun bathers do not deserve a trespass even if there is no sign or fence? 
> 
> Dumpster diving?
> 
> I would also suggest you throw up a thread over at Mises and see what kind of responses you get.


I'd say the alienable right to property (transferable, therefore alienable) would get overruled by the inalienable right to movement (if I can speak in terms of rights for ease of conversation, although if forced I can speak in terms of utility I suppose).  That's not to say nude sunbathers can just trespass whenever...but as you asserted, when there is no sign or fence (or to a lesser degree, even when there is) the land owner must assume accidental trespass. The assumption is made of good intent until otherwise shown. If the sign and fence were there (more the sign, less the fence), you should still assume confusion or medical problem clouding rational movement. So, yes, in the example of nude sunbathers trespassing out of confusion, the land owner should be left w/o renumerative or retribtuve legal recourse due to the elevated confusion possible because there is no sign, or fence for that matter.

But are the sunbathers hot women? He may then be smart to keep the sign and fence away, and invite such confusion (lol).

Dumpster diving is another story. If we're in today's world, I'd say there is no crime there as long as you aren't leaving trash outside the dumpster before leaving. But in a world I imagine possible, people could sell their trash to trash men who recycle it for profit. If that were possible, then you'd remain owner of that property, not relegating it to simple refuse. If that were the case, it'd be low level theft.

Maybe I will throw up a thread at Mises, see what happens. Thanks for the suggestion. You can also repost (obviously) 

One thing I'd mention: I'm only considering moderate circumstances above. In extreme circumstances the rules change a bit. For example, if you're land was posted or not, and was in between a bleeding sunbather and a hospital in an emeergency (shark attack perhaps), they would find the path of least coercion to be trepassing briefly. This would still be a crime, but with no damage done I'm not sure the renumeration would exist, and if it did, it might be insubstantial (an apology, or a quarter or something). In the case of dumpster diving, if hunger were an issue then again the path of least coercion would come into play, and again it would be unethical and a crime, but nonetheless the correct path. Again, after the extreme circumstance had passed, the dumpster diver would need to renumerate the victim of theft (in my hypothetical world where trash were property and not simply refuse).

Thanks for your interest, BTW.

----------


## Conza88

> Recently, I had a discussion with Rothbardian Girl about Non Aggressive Principle. She brought up some good points in defense of the idea and that got me thinking about the core base of this principle.  What is the core justification of this idea?





*Self-ownership* and *original appropriation* (homesteading)... necessarily leads to the NAP. 

Case closed. Let me know if you want more.

----------


## Conza88

> I concur.
> 
> Are we not actively opposing a corrupt state?
> 
> Isn't that a form of aggression?
> 
>  aggression: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.
> 
> I'd like to see the ideas of liberty, prosperity, and peace dominate.
> ...


No... ALL aggression is wrong (it is defined as the initiation)... not all COERCION however is wrong. 


Coercion” is annoying, but coercion is neutral 
Posted by Stephan Kinsella on July 6, 2006 02:43 PM

"I must confess that one of my nits is the use by libertarians of the word “coercion” to mean “aggression.” I suspect this is a habit inherited from Ayn Rand’s repeated misuse of the term. Let’s get it straight: we libertarians oppose aggression, i.e. the so-called “initiation of force”, not force itself. To coerce is just to use force to make someone do something, to compel them. Coercion is just a type of use of force. Libertarianism is no more against coercion or force than it is against guns, which may be used for good, or evil."

----------


## Conza88

> Really, the level of ridiculousness in some people with this subject is off the charts.


Time to learn about / move onto argumentation ethics / a priori of argumentation and communication I think...

----------


## Sentient Void

I feel the NAP is sorely misunderstood - by both ancaps and collectivists alike.

I am a firm advocate of the NAP (in regards to person and private property) in a justice system being 'built' around it - or stated differently, that the best justice system will probably be built around the NAP, and that a society that follows the NAP absolutely consistently will be the most 'just' as well as the most prosperous. 

That being said, some ancaps, libertarians, et al say that the NAP is *never* to be violated, no matter what... I disagree with this.

Example...

If my brother or sister or child or parent or close friend or even perhaps a complete stranger was dying in front of me, at 3:00 AM in front of a closed pharmacy and was in *dire* need of a certain type of medicine very soon - I would not hesitate to break into the pharmacy to steal the medicine (and/or requisite first aid kit) in order to save his life.

This would certainly be a clear violation of the NAP.

But to me, I don't see how this makes me any less deontologically libertarian, or ancap, or whatever. 

I don't find my stance on the NAP inconsistent with libertarianism at all. The NAP still holds, as long as restitution/retribution is doled out. I personally would willingly give myself over to the victim (the pharmacy) and ask for judgement to be made and accept those consequences. But it comes down to how responsibility must be taken for the person's actions in breaking into and stealing the medicine/first aid. Whether willing or unwilling, it's about responsibility for one's actions, and justice via application of retribution/restitution according to proportionality appropriate to the violation of the NAP.

At that point one must weigh the just consequences of the theft with my value of the person that 'needs' to be saved. Is it worth it for me? In the vast majority of cases, I would say it would be worth it and I would engage int he theft and welcome the consequences. If I did not welcome the consequences, it would still be unjust for me to get away with it. 

At the same time, the victim of the theft (pharmacy) has the right to 'up to' the value of the property in restitution, perhaps more depending on who you talk to (Block nods) - which means they also have the right to not pursue the restitution - which may even be good PR and attract more profit because of public response...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [lots of good sense snipped for space]


I agree completely. In place of your pharmacy example, I've always used this scenario: imagine you're lost & freezing in a blizzard and you stumble across a cabin (or some other kind of shelter). The owner, who is present, is an elderly person who is unduly afraid of you & refuses to assist. What do you do? Do you say, "Oh, well! The NAP forbids me to forcibly tresspass, so I'll just wander off & die" ... ?

NAP is an _a posteriori_ (or "post-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (previously committed) action is a suitable candidate for jurisprudential consideration.

NAP is NOT an _a priori_ (or "pre-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (as yet uncommitted) action must *never* be committed. (Though it can often serve as a general guide or rule-of-thumb in this regard - especially under mundane circumstances or in situations that are not "edge cases.")

Also important to remember is the fact that NAP doesn't tell us anything about *what* we ought (or ought not) to do in response to NAP violations. Other valid principles of justice (such as that of restitution) are required for that purpose.

----------


## Voluntary Man

follow your principles. take action. face the consequences. 

sometimes you have to strike first, if you want to survive. however, by doing so you take responsibility as the aggressor. you run the risk that what you may be able to justify to yourself, you may not be able to justify to others.

your actions may only delay what they were intended to prevent. 

in the end, we're all worm food, anyway. so, live by your principles and take your chances.

----------


## Voluntary Man

> I've always used this scenario: imagine you're lost & freezing in a blizzard and you stumble across a cabin (or some other kind of shelter). The owner, who is present, is an elderly person who is unduly afraid of you & refuses to assist. What do you do? Do you say, "Oh, well! The NAP forbids me to forcibly tresspass, so I'll just wander off & die" ... ?


I'm wondering how your story ends. in my version, trespasser is shot by frightened, elderly property owner. how does your version end?

----------


## ProIndividual

> "I must confess that one of my nits is the use by libertarians of the word “coercion” to mean “aggression.” I suspect this is a habit inherited from Ayn Rand’s repeated misuse of the term. Let’s get it straight: we libertarians oppose aggression, i.e. the so-called “initiation of force”, not force itself. To coerce is just to use force to make someone do something, to compel them. Coercion is just a type of use of force. Libertarianism is no more against coercion or force than it is against guns, which may be used for good, or evil."


I disagree with this quote. I am against coercion more than initiation of aggression...and I'm nowhere near an Objectivist.

How can I say this?

Because initiation of aggression is coercion when used against someone who has not yet, by their own actions, compromised their individual sovereignty. To open yourself to justifiable coercion you must first ALWAYS have shown by prior actions you are unable, whether mentally or physically, as an adult, to govern yourself. If you do not show this (by initiating unwarranted aggression via this criteria), then you cannot be justly coerced.

It is precisely coercion anarchists seek to stop. It is a non-coercive world that anarchy seeks to create (insofar as it is possible). It is justifiable to initiate aggression at times (when one has already compromised their individual sovereignty through aggressive action) and coerce at times (when their is no non-coercive choice; precisely in extreme circumstances where the NAP is itself coercive). Non-aggression can also lead to coercion. Anarchism is a philosophy about non-coercion (where possible), not necessarily non-aggression all the time, universally. It's so confusing because one often mirrors the other.

This is why I suggest replacing the NAP with the "path of least coercion". In what I have previously defined as "moderate circumstances", the NAP is fine, and my theory mirrors it. However, in what I have previously defined as "extreme circumstances" (example: starvation; shall you steal or die by upholding the NAP), the NAP is itself a coercion. In such cases you should choose the "path of least coercion" (death is more coercive than theft, even though dying is devoid of initiated aggression). In other words, the "path of least coercion" is more consistent and coherent, as it adapts to all circumstances, whereas the NAP cannot. In "moderate circumstances" my theory still sides with the NAP, because logically when their is a non-coercive path, the "path of least coercion" is the NAP (or it's Utilitarian, consequentialist equivalent).

Essentially we cross over and obliterate the deonotological/consequentialist paradigm by using my theory. In moderate circumstances we can view this as deontological (rule based, if you will), or consequentialist (as the best consequences come from the least coercion occuring). In extreme circumstances it is also both deonotological and consequentialist. You might say in the moderate it's more deontological, and in extreme more consequentialist...but regardless, it isn't either 100%. That paradigm no more fits real life than "right" and "left" do.

If you follow the path of least coercion you will be following the NAP until an extreme siutation occurs. At that time your initiated aggression will NOT be ethical just because it's the path of least coercion. It therefore is criminal, as pointed out above (according to the NAP). HOWEVER, when developing law one must always take each case individually, and I believe the NAP makes no distinction between theft for enjoyment and theft for necessity to limit coercion. It is by looking at the path of least coercion that we can see which of the motives is deserving of more punishment (if any - as rightly pointed out above). It makes it clear that stealing food or medicine for necessity is a lesser crime even though just as unethical under the NAP, thereby perscribing lesser renumerative and retributive (if any - depending on your theory of law) penalties than to theft for enjoyment (wanton criminality).

I think since we allow law to emerge via our ethical theory it's important that we use an ethical theory that is consistent...and that requires knowing how to handle situations that will force us to do unethical things to limit coercion (the real enemy is coercion, not aggression). 

_Where initiating aggression increases coercion, we shall not aggress. Where initiating aggression decreases (or does not increase) coercion, we shall aggress. We shall always choose the path of least coercion._

_Initiated aggression is universally unethical and criminal. All initated aggressions are equally unethical. All initiated aggressions are not equally criminal. 

When choosing initiations of aggression that are the least coercive possible, we have commited the lesser crime. When choosing initiations of aggression that are not the least coercive possible, we have commited the greater crime._

With these italicized statements in mind, I think "the path of least coercion" is a better theory for determining ethics, prefered actions, law, and penalties for criminality than the NAP. It's just more consistent in my mind, and able to answer tough hypotheticals that many NAP adherents struggle with in terms of consistent answers (example: I've heard NAP proponents say it's the preferable course of action - not to be cofused with the ethical one - to steal to stop starvation when no alternatives exist, however, some of these same folks will suggest stealing from another starving person who will also die is not preferable, which I find decidedly inconsistent - because stealing does not increase coercion and there is no non-coercive path).

As always, I'm open to debate or criticism

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm wondering how your story ends. in my version, trespasser is shot by frightened, elderly property owner. how does your version end?


My version doesn't have an ending ... it's a cliffhanger! 

Seriously, though, I leave the story unfinished in order to suggest numerous possible outcomes. There's the "I'll go way and die" outcome, or the "I kill the resident to save myself" outcome, or the "I tresspass by sneaking into the barn" outcome, or... (and so forth).

The point is that, for one reason or another, *none* of the possible outcomes (given the situation) are entirely satisfactory. This indicates that the NAP, as critically important as it is, is not the "end-all-be-all" that many make it out to be. This isn't due to any flaw or inadequacy in the NAP - it's due to attempts to force the NAP to give us neat, tidy answers where no such answers are possible (under *any* principle of justice).

----------

