Isn't the non-aggression principle violated when we punish?

[socialize_me]

I'm trying to grapple with this idea of non-aggressionism, but it seems unavoidable and to subscribe to it appears to be hypocritical. For one, you will always have aggressors, and it seems the only way to prevent them from being further aggressive is to be aggressive yourself, no? For instance, to stop someone from committing armed robbery again, you will have to imprison them. It seems essentially the way we punish aggression is through aggressive vengeance.

So is this really an all-or-nothing concept? Like free market capitalism is really economic anarchy, and any sort of government intervention means the system is socialistic even if it's minimal. Granted there are more acceptable forms of socialism--like the government simply providing roads is more favorable than bailing out financial institutions and "creating jobs"--although both instances are still far from anything the free market is capable of doing efficiently.

Capitalism appears to be very much an all-or-nothing concept and it really cannot be hypocritical..it seems on the topic of non-aggression vs. aggression, you're either one or the other. You can't be a person against aggression, yet advocate aggressively imprisoning someone for their aggressive acts. Two wrongs make a right?

I'm not advocating that we should just let armed robbers go and not punish them, but I'm trying to understand how people subscribing to non-aggressionism can justify being aggressive under circumstances like throwing an armed robber in jail, arresting a rapist, etc.

 

[Austin]

Pulling a TW here

(n) aggression (the act of initiating hostilities)

or

(n) aggression, hostility (violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked

emphasis mine

 

[socialize_me]

Pulling a TW here


emphasis mine

Okay, so vengeance isn't an aggressive act? Is it not vengeance when we imprison people? I think so..

If you kill someone's father and his son murders you, has the son committed a non-aggressive act?

Also, your quote said USUALLY unprovoked. Nice selective bolding

 

[tggroo7]

This is an interesting topic. I like hearing (or normally in my case, presenting) devil's advocate side.

My thinking is that the non-aggression principle is for anyone with full rights. A cow is living but it is subject to aggression with no objections. It does not possess the full rights of a clean-cut human being. The same goes with a criminal. A criminal is a like lesser being (at least until his/her sentence is served) and does not possess the same rights as any clean-cut human being. Of course, my definition of criminal is far from the wide range of today's "criminals." If one commits aggression or takes the rights of another (IMO this excludes victimless crimes), he/she no longer possess the full rights of an innocent human being and it is fair for the person to be subjected to imprisonment.

The cow analogy is probably stupid or unneccessary, lol. But long story short, I believe simply that the NAP only applies to non-criminal human beings. Once one has lost the "non-criminal" part, he/she may be subject to some aggression.

The question, IMO, is not whether or not vengeance is aggression. It is whether or not criminals have full rights and can be considered under the NAP since they themselves don't follow it.

 

[micahnelson]

We have the right to do whatever we can do.

We cede these rights to form a society. Our government was established to protect the rights of the individual, and provide a mechanism for change if people who were born into the system did not like it.

Yes, people born into this country are involuntarily thrown into a political system they have no say in, but intellectually speaking most people are. Born into lawlessness, your system is kill or be killed. Born into society and government, you must obey the rules of the land- else be punished.

When a person violates the contract the government has with the people who empower it- the person has waved his rights. He has decided to live lawlessly and the protections for his liberties are null and void. The lawbreaker defects from the agreement and thus reverts to his original state where only the strong survive. Unfortunately for him, the collective force of the government is stronger- and the lawbreaker finds himself at the mercy of society.

 

[Theocrat]

The Failure of the NAP

Yes, the non-aggression principle is violated when aggression is used to punish criminals for crime, whether by forcing them to court, imposing a fine, imprisoning them, or death penalty. It is inescapable in any society that aggression is going to be necessary. Human nature makes this a necessity for survival as well as for security and peace.

That is the main problem which is repeatedly pointed out to those who wish for a "voluntaryist" utopia with anarcho-capitalist economics. I see no way they can consistently resolve the paradox of their own NAP, especially in answering the questions of why it should be imposed upon anyone and how it will be enforced in society.

Unless human hearts are regenerated, aggression will always be part of a society. Do we want to decrease aggressive acts? Of course. The only way that will be guaranteed to happen is by a bottom-up, God-initiated, spiritual revival, similar to the days of America's first Great Awakening.

 

[idiom]

The Passivity Principle is not the same as Pacifism.

If somebody pisses you off you are allowed to retaliate. You get to define how much aggresion pisses you off and how much retaliation you think is nessecary. But it is in no way arbitrary.

It is also non-reflexive. That is, you are allowed to be aggresive through inaction. You can't kill someone, but you can let them die.

Also, you have no right to intervene if you come across someone getting raped. Its none of your business, the rapist did not aggress against you, move along please.

You have to understand, Rothbard did not *derive* the passivity principle from anything, he just ruled out some other ideas and concluded that Passivity must be the correct answer because he couldn't think of anything else.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

this is why im not into philosophy. People get hung up on philosophical absolutes.

 

[idiom]

We have the right to do whatever we can do.

We cede these rights to form a society. Our government was established to protect the rights of the individual, and provide a mechanism for change if people who were born into the system did not like it.

Yes, people born into this country are involuntarily thrown into a political system they have no say in, but intellectually speaking most people are. Born into lawlessness, your system is kill or be killed. Born into society and government, you must obey the rules of the land- else be punished.

When a person violates the contract the government has with the people who empower it- the person has waved his rights. He has decided to live lawlessly and the protections for his liberties are null and void. The lawbreaker defects from the agreement and thus reverts to his original state where only the strong survive. Unfortunately for him, the collective force of the government is stronger- and the lawbreaker finds himself at the mercy of society.

You don't cede those rights to join a society. Rights are created when you join the society. You have no rights outside of society. "Rights" are not things but descriptors of clauses that exist in implict or explict agreements between two or more entites.

 

[sailor]

People who are fans of NAP generally don`t believe in locking people up "for punishment".

 

[Truth Warrior]

Thread title question, answer: Yep! Which is a BIG part of the reason < ??? > that the BARBARIANS reject the NAP.<IMHO> Aggression is Wrong, by Robert LeFevre

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."​

 

[Kludge]

People who are fans of NAP generally don`t believe in locking people up "for punishment".

To be consistent with the NAP, though, we couldn't lock people up to prevent a threat, either. Retaliation is just a stupid knee-jerk emotional reaction, but I see the merit in pre-emptive hamstringing of proven criminals.

Take Bernie Madoff as an example. What he did was certainly unethical, but does he really need to be imprisoned? What purpose does that serve us? He's a bigger burden to us in prison, and he's obviously not a threat to society.

 

[Truth Warrior]

This is an interesting topic. I like hearing (or normally in my case, presenting) devil's advocate side.

My thinking is that the non-aggression principle is for anyone with full rights. A cow is living but it is subject to aggression with no objections. It does not possess the full rights of a clean-cut human being. The same goes with a criminal. A criminal is a like lesser being (at least until his/her sentence is served) and does not possess the same rights as any clean-cut human being. Of course, my definition of criminal is far from the wide range of today's "criminals." If one commits aggression or takes the rights of another (IMO this excludes victimless crimes), he/she no longer possess the full rights of an innocent human being and it is fair for the person to be subjected to imprisonment.

The cow analogy is probably stupid or unneccessary, lol. But long story short, I believe simply that the NAP only applies to non-criminal human beings. Once one has lost the "non-criminal" part, he/she may be subject to some aggression.

The question, IMO, is not whether or not vengeance is aggression. It is whether or not criminals have full rights and can be considered under the NAP since they themselves don't follow it.

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

It's NOT about THEM ( collective ). It's about YOU ( individual ).

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, the non-aggression principle is violated when aggression is used to punish criminals for crime, whether by forcing them to court, imposing a fine, imprisoning them, or death penalty. It is inescapable in any society that aggression is going to be necessary. Human nature makes this a necessity for survival as well as for security and peace.

That is the main problem which is repeatedly pointed out to those who wish for a "voluntaryist" utopia with anarcho-capitalist economics. I see no way they can consistently resolve the paradox of their own NAP, especially in answering the questions of why it should be imposed upon anyone and how it will be enforced in society.

Unless human hearts are regenerated, aggression will always be part of a society. Do we want to decrease aggressive acts? Of course. The only way that will be guaranteed to happen is by a bottom-up, God-initiated, spiritual revival, similar to the days of America's first Great Awakening.

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

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

Please feel free to point out ALL of the specific CONFLICTS, in detail ( except for the [ NON-"religious" biased ] universal secularity ), between your post and the NAP.

Thanks!


"The core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence."

 

[micahnelson]

You don't cede those rights to join a society. Rights are created when you join the society. You have no rights outside of society. "Rights" are not things but descriptors of clauses that exist in implict or explict agreements between two or more entites.

Good point. The point I was trying to make was that in nature and without society we have no limits but our natural limits. We cannot fly, breath underwater, run 50mph, etc.

When we enter into a society we cede the "right" to do some of the things we could do if the society didn't exist. Society places restrictions on a person beyond natural law, and rightfully so. I don't want the world ruled by the tallest and strongest brutes.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Good point. The point I was trying to make was that in nature and without society we have no limits but our natural limits. We cannot fly, breath underwater, run 50mph, etc.

When we enter into a society we cede the "right" to do some of the things we could do if the society didn't exist. Society places restrictions on a person beyond natural law, and rightfully so. I don't want the world ruled by the tallest and strongest brutes.

Where does the "magic changeover" occur? http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

 

[tremendoustie]

People who are fans of NAP generally don`t believe in locking people up "for punishment".

I do, although I would prefer a work compensation program. If someone assaults someone, it'd be better for them to work their ass off for that person than rot in jail helping no one.

If a person is a continuing threat, you may have to lock them up ... maybe they could still do some work in jail though.

I'm a voluntaryist, and the NAP means no initiating of violence -- responding to violence is not breaking the NAP. I don't think I'm alone on this. Punishing criminals or seeking compensation is not the initiation of force.

 

[ChaosControl]

Well I fully support justice. Some may call justice vengeance, that is their choice. If justice violates the NAP, well I side with justice.

You murder, the victims have the right to kill you.
You steal, the victims have the right to take everything you have.
You rape, the victims have the right to castrate you.

I prefer leaving it up to the victims with consent of all, rather than leaving it up to the state. Although if the victims refuse to act, then I can see the state stepping it to prevent further action by these criminals.

 

[tremendoustie]

Well I fully support justice. Some may call justice vengeance, that is their choice. If justice violates the NAP, well I side with justice.

You murder, the victims have the right to kill you.
You steal, the victims have the right to take everything you have.
You rape, the victims have the right to castrate you.

I prefer leaving it up to the victims with consent of all, rather than leaving it up to the state. Although if the victims refuse to act, then I can see the state stepping it to prevent further action by these criminals.

I don't think individuals should be responsible for it, that would just lead to chaos and endless retribution.

Instead, I think a combination of private insurance companies, protection agencies, and courts could handle the situation quite well.

Check this out, for some ideas on how this justice system might work: http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

Of course, I disagree with the moralizing and anti-religious tones, but get past that, and there are some excellent practical ideas here.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I can simply say that it is a good thing that the minutemen at Lexington Green did not believe in an absolute non-agression policy.