Has my libertarian card been revoked? Has it?

[idiom]

Exactly. There is not a contradiction here. It's the classic, "is it immoral to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?" which is meant to show that morality is not absolute and can be situational.

But you're not contradicting the principle, there are still consequences for breaking it. Especially in a survival or life-or-death situation, sometimes people have to do things that go against their personal beliefs. That doesn't make their personal beliefs any less right or valid, it just means that situations might dictate what is the best course of action. You can find exceptions to any rule, but that has very little to do with whether they are valid in the vast majority of circumstances.

Hell, it doesn't even mean the exception is right or wrong to break it, it just means that the world isn't always black and white. Sometimes you have to weigh consequences with benefits and morality to come up with what you think is right in that instance.

If you have to be preemptively aggressive to defend your property... have at it?

 

[Ronin Truth]

What if this? What if that? By and large hypotheticals suck. Just keep it simple. Hint: Golden Rule handles > 95+% of real world situations.

 

[Ronin Truth]

//

 

[Christian Liberty]

Exactly. There is not a contradiction here. It's the classic, "is it immoral to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?" which is meant to show that morality is not absolute and can be situational.

But you're not contradicting the principle, there are still consequences for breaking it. Especially in a survival or life-or-death situation, sometimes people have to do things that go against their personal beliefs. That doesn't make their personal beliefs any less right or valid, it just means that situations might dictate what is the best course of action. You can find exceptions to any rule, but that has very little to do with whether they are valid in the vast majority of circumstances.

Hell, it doesn't even mean the exception is right or wrong to break it, it just means that the world isn't always black and white. Sometimes you have to weigh consequences with benefits and morality to come up with what you think is right in that instance.

My issue with this is that I've seen people use the "Not black and white" excuse with regards to things that really are quite black and white. Like breaking into someone's home and locking them up in a cage because they smoked dope, or even worse, drone bombing Pakistan to kill whoever without warrant or trial.

At any rate, I believe Occam's Banana is correct that the NAP is intended to be applied AFTER you do the action, not before.

In the scenario in the OP, I'm morally OK with him breaking in to the Pharmacy, but only if he turns himself in afterwards and is willing to accept the consequences for his actions (probably double restitution.)

 

[Sentient Void]

The equivocation and dervish-dancing and general discomfort amongst some libertarians is strong, here.

heheheh. I rest my case.

Did you 'break' the NAP? Did you *aggress* against person and/or property? Yes? Then you violated the NAP. Just say it. 'Sometimes, in extraordinarily rare situations, it is okay to violate the NAP'. It's reaaaaal easy. All you have to do is accept it.

And saying 'keep it simple', 'hypotheticals suck', is basically saying nothing at all. These are words, with no real arguments backing them. It comes to this... the NAP. The *Non-Aggression Principle*. Is it okay sometimes to violate the NAP? Yes or no (never, ever, ever, no matter what the scenario/crcumstances)?

 

[cjm]

I violate the NAP daily. I have children. I still consider myself "libertarian" or "libertarian leaning"

 

[eduardo89]

I was once given a Libertarian Card. This is what I promptly did with it:

 

[ProIndividual]

SV,

I wrote about why I worked out my own ethical theory after some time thinking about ways the NAP can't "work" in extreme circumstances. Check it out...if you want more on this, I've written quite a bit about (and have faced much ridicule for it):


The Non-Aggression Axiom, Utilitarianism, and Natural Law: Differentiating Morality, Practicality, and Legality

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...rentiating-Morality-Practicality-and-Legality

Cliffs:

Afterall, lessening coercion should always be preferable in the absence of a non-coercive choice.

This is the important conclusion: that in the absence of a non-coercive choice, the "path of least coercion" should be chosen.

If you read the entire thread, I get into a bit of detail while debating.

I took this essay and developed an ethical theory that was far more coherent, and stopped referring to Molyneux's UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior), because I was able to instead replace it with a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (the SLOET; which is similar, but not the exact same as the UPB, and derived slightly differently). I call the theory PLC (the Path of Least Coercion - identical to the NAP in all but rare extreme circumstances, and identical to Utilitarianism's prescriptions for behavior in all but a few areas), and it is neither deontological nor consequentialist in ethics (and yet both). It falls under what I call "circumstantialist ethics" (as all ethics are subjective outside of the SLOET, and all actions are circumstance dependent).

The SLOET is pretty simple:

1. What is the nature of reality? As per the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, it's clear we can't prove reality even exists. However, as Ayn Rand aptly pointed out, there is no point in discussing anything at all, or doing anything at all, if we do not simply assume an objective reality exists. So we assume an objective reality exists (but we view it subjectively; hence 10 witnesses to a crime will all describe it and the criminal slightly, or even vastly, differently).

2. What is the nature of knowledge? Since reality is assumed objective, but is subjectively viewed, then knowledge can only be attained via logic and reason, and their invention of the scientific method (and those things create a filter for the subjective aspects, as to determine what is universally objective). From logic and reason we developed the scientific method, as to test our subjective views to see if we were accurately describing the objective reality we assume we share. Logic, reason, and the scientific method allow us to test our subjective ideas and observations across the globe apart from each other, to see if they are accurately describing the objective reality, or best known truth. ("Best known truth" refers to Karl Popper's idea that our view of objective reality through science is really an ever increasing and ever clearer view based on a succession of theories, each less wrong than the last, but none that are perfectly correct simply because they are more correct than the previous theories.)

3. What is the nature of ethics, given 1 and 2? If reality is assumed objective, but viewed subjectively, and if knowledge is only that which can be filtered through logic and the scientific method (and never in an absolute sense via scientific theory), then we can arrive at a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET). That truth is, no view of reality is perfectly known to be correct without being tested, both inductively and then via falsifiability, and since subjective ethical views cannot largely be tested in any scientific way, and the logic used to test them has limits on these subjective views, the SLOET is simply that no one single ethical code should be imposed, via law or social norm, on anyone that is not voluntarily agreeing to it. That is to say, the SLOET says that coercion (of those capable of consent) into one particular ethical standard is invalid logically, as it has to ignore 1 and 2 above. All coercion of those capable of consent into one particular ethical standard would have to assume an objective reality is perfectly known, and that assumes it can be perfectly tested - both of which are not possible.

Furthermore,

The PLC allows coercion of non-coercive individuals (non-victimizers) ONLY when two criteria are met:

1.There are no non-coercive choices (this includes coercions of man, AND coercions of nature, like starvation for example). This includes coercive choices of varying degrees, and equally coercive choices, but both must be in the absence of non-coercive choices.

2. The choice you make is either coercion neutral among coercive choices of equal coercive value (this can be done via the Trolley Dilemma), or it is the least coercive choice among choices that are all to varying degrees coercive.

No non-coercive choice can exist for the PLC to prescribe an initiation of coercion against an innocent. The PLC counts coercions of nature and humans as distinguishable, but effectively equal forms of coercion in practice when put upon the individual.

I do not claim the PLC is objectively true...I claim the SLOET is. And the SLOET is only objectively true because it is derived ONLY via logic and reason, not based on any subjective valuations in ethics. My point is, the PLC seems to me to plug the gaps in the utilitarian and NAP theories in ethics, by somewhat combining them both, and somewhat critiquing them both. Functionally, it's almost identical however. The SLOET is functionally very similar to the UPB of Molyneux, but it is derived differently and doesn't claim that there is any universally preferable action. Although I believe Molyneux is correct about saying "one cannot be murdered voluntarily; that would be assisted suicide", etc., I do not believe any behaviors are preferable universally. There are cases where this seems to me to be shown (one where a woman actively searched for a man online to torture and kill her because it was her sexual fantasy, and she found him, and it was his fantasy to torture and kill a willing victim).

BTW, using real world cases as hypotheticals, or fictional cases (like circumstances from The Walking Dead comic and show, and even video games) makes it easier to discuss these ethical dilemmas. I also find arguing from relatively easy circumstances to then the very extreme helps make the point you were seeking. For example, is it okay to steal to save your child's life in a famine if all other methods to get food have failed, and the person you are stealing from has plenty but is irrationally hoarding? You'd have to violate the NAP to do it, the utilitarian theory might have you steal in even less extreme circumstances that violate the NAP, and the PLC would have you steal here, call it ethical, but not necessarily recommend a legal absolution (but would argue for a reduced penalty due to circumstances).

That one is easy...but what about the extreme...like cannibalism on a lifeboat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

On 23 or 24 July, with Parker probably in a coma, Dudley told the others that it was better that one of them die so that the others survive and that they should draw lots. Brooks refused. That night, Dudley again raised the matter with Stephens pointing out that Parker was probably dying and that he and Stephens had wives and families. They agreed to leave the matter until the morning.

The following day, with no prospect of rescue in sight, Dudley and Stephens silently signaled to each other that Parker would be killed. Killing Parker before his natural death would better preserve his blood to drink. Brooks, who had not been party to the earlier discussion, claimed to have signaled neither assent nor protest. Dudley always insisted that Brooks had assented. Dudley said a prayer and, with Stephens standing by to hold the youth's legs if he struggled, pushed his penknife into Parker's jugular vein, killing him.[6]

If you can see that them killing one to save three, instead of allowing all 4 to die, which were their only choices (here nature is coercing them to death), is ethical, albeit illegal and disturbing, then you can see how the PLC works. It's not about the act...even murder and cannibalism can be ethical if the circumstance is extreme enough. Circumstances dictate ethics in my opinion, not acts themselves. No act should be viewed as "right" or "wrong"...the circumstance determines this value judgment. The law, however, should not perfectly mirror the PLC...something can be ethical, and yet should still be illegal, because victims are created and were innocent, so remuneration, and possibly some penalty outside of recompense, is required. However, the PLC says law should take into account circumstances, so that theft out of starvation should be considered different than theft for greed, and murder and cannibalism for survival should be considered different that murder and cannibalism for pleasure or revenge.

However, all consensual crimes are not considered crimes by the PLC, provided you are capable of consent by age and lack of serious mental illness or handicap at the time of consenting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime

I voted YES in your poll, but I was convinced long before your article link

 

[Ronin Truth]

I violate the NAP daily. I have children. I still consider myself "libertarian" or "libertarian leaning"

So where do you stand and how do you feel about the Golden Rule?

 

[osan]

Exactly. There is not a contradiction here. It's the classic, "is it immoral to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?" which is meant to show that morality is not absolute and can be situational.

Unless you can provide a truly sterling illustrative example of how this is so as stated, I would have to disagree. The morality is absolute within its contextual frame of reference. I do not believe this can be credibly challenged. Perhaps what you may be attempting to express is the somewhat fluid nature of the ways in which we, as practically minded creatures needing to live among each other on a daily basis, are willing to make allowances - pragmatic wiggle room, if you will - in the practical application of the principles.

I am not nearly convinced that principles such as the NAP can be adhered to with perfection, but only to within a certain tolerance. I also believe that this is not only OK, it is necessary. Why? Because we are human beings and not machines. In most situations we need some wiggle-room in order to get from one moment to the next without self-destructing or getting so caught up in the minutiae of accounting for every possible detail of an interaction between two or more pe ople that absolutely nothing would ever get accomplished.

Consider our five senses as an analogous example in the following way. Something like 95++% of all the stimuli picked up by out various sensing apparatus is filtered out - effectively ignored by the brain - such that it never makes its way into our conscious awareness. Were it otherwise, we would go catatonic in a matter of minutes because we would be completely incapable of dealing with the endless torrent of sensory input. It would literally drive us mad - it would kill us, in fact. The brain does a fabulous job of filtering our the unimportant information, taking what remains, and summarizing it very neatly such that we are able to have a more or less seamless experience of the reality of which we are a part.

The same may be said of principles such as the NAP. There are so many interactions between people on a daily basis that most of what we do with one another is really not worth putting to scrutiny for compliance to any given principle. Consider the Japanese, a people who rarely say precisely what is on their minds. They will lie left and right, explicitly or by omission about things they do not consider worth kicking up a fuss about. Indeed, it is precisely because they have been historically SO heavily principled that they have developed their system of evading certain truths as a means of social lubrication. It is precisely because they so devotedly adhered to principles of respect for one's peers and because those principles rendered disrespect a potentially capital offense that it became necessary to develop this way of evading "petty" truths in order to avoid being taken in such a way as might be construed as an offense.

It is the same for any people living by such high standards. Those standards are ideals toward which people strive but of necessity cannot fully attain. Nobody in their right mind thinks such ideals can be realized fully or that any such person would want to try. When a friend comes to visit and grabs a beer without asking, are you going to take him to court over it? Chances are you will not say a word about it unless the beer is for a specific occasion. Taking a sheet of paper to write a note... technically a violation of the NAP via violation of someone's property rights. Who is going to sue for a sheet of paper or call the police? Right.

The hazard here, of course, lies in boundaries and application, both of which can only be properly defined and practiced by men with the requisite competence and purity of heart.

I failrly agree with the rest of what you wrote - just wanted to point out the issue that moral principle itself should be immutable. It is our practice of its application that may be helped with a little grease here and there.