NAP and Slavery. (Or coming to others aide)

[jcannon98188]

Hey guys, I was thinking about this today when I was reading about WW2. Following NAP, would a country be justified in invading a country in order to liberate people from slave camps or to stop genocide? I am not talking about "liberating" them like we did in Afghan and Iraq. What I mean is countries like North Korea, or WW2 Germany (if we knew about the concentration camps beforehand) would it be a violation of the NAP for America to send it's armies to that nation and liberate those people? Or what if you were walking down a street and see a woman being raped or beaten or robbed or any number of violent crimes. Would it be a NAP violation to intervene to save that woman?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think going with the purist forms of the NAP, all taxation is theft and so unjustifiable. Minarchists make an exception for defense of the country and catching and punishing those who victimize others, but I don't think invading foreign countries could be an exception. Really, someone who was willing to trust the government with that kind of power wouldn't be much of a libertarian anyway. So you couldn't tax for it. You also couldn't kill innocent people, so you'd be really limited in what kinds of weapons you use. Frankly and personally, if some other country attacks me, if I'm President, I'm going to do anything I need to do to subdue them, but I don't think you can use this excuse to "Liberate" their country. Plus... blowback...

Its theoretically possible but I think there are too many variables and you practically never follow the NAP completely when doing it. So better to just stick to your own country.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Would you just stand there and do nothing if it was a friend or family member being attacked? It would be moral and justifiable to take action. NAP does not apply, because in order for it to be aggression on your part it has to be unprovoked. It would also be immoral for the state to disallow a person from protecting or defending someone being attacked, otherwise it would be immoral to have law enforcement agencies. But also, is that the same thing as one country invading another for similar reasons? It basically is, but that doesn't mean that the government may just misallocate its defense forces. Other solutions or remedies that do not create such problems will have to be sought.

 

[Origanalist]

Hey guys, I was thinking about this today when I was reading about WW2. Following NAP, would a country be justified in invading a country in order to liberate people from slave camps or to stop genocide? I am not talking about "liberating" them like we did in Afghan and Iraq. What I mean is countries like North Korea, or WW2 Germany (if we knew about the concentration camps beforehand) would it be a violation of the NAP for America to send it's armies to that nation and liberate those people? Or what if you were walking down a street and see a woman being raped or beaten or robbed or any number of violent crimes. Would it be a NAP violation to intervene to save that woman?

Seriously?

 

[tod evans]

There sure are lots of threads on this "NAP"...

I suppose there's a reason folks would question right and wrong and the proper use of violent force but to me it's kinda like that judge who knows pornography when he sees it..

I'll not look for reasons to use force nor will I try to justify the cowardice of inaction..

For me, I'll err on the side of violence doing what I think is right rather than chance viewing myself as a coward for lack of action..

And I certainly won't try and excuse either behavior in advance..


Follow your heart.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The US government is not established according to the NAP, and the NAP is in no way a consideration for those who guide policy.

In a world organized according to the NAP, if you see an injustice in the world that you wish to address, by all means, do your work. And by all means, seek out help from others. But do not think that because you see an injustice somewhere in the world that you have a right to commit one against me, in the form of theft (taxation) or slavery (impressment into the military). For if you do, I will resist you, according to the tenets of the NAP.

And that is how that works.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The US government is not established according to the NAP, and the NAP is in no way a consideration for those who guide policy.

In a world organized according to the NAP, if you see an injustice in the world that you wish to address, by all means, do your work. And by all means, seek out help from others. But do not think that because you see an injustice somewhere in the world that you have a right to commit one against me, in the form of theft (taxation) or slavery (impressment into the military). For if you do, I will resist you, according to the tenets of the NAP.

And that is how that works.

For a minarchist taxation is acceptable for defense of the country, for police, and for courts. But under no form of libertarianism is foreign interventonism that we force people to pay for against their will justifiable.

 

[jcannon98188]

Seriously?

Yes seriously. I am simply looking to understand the NAP more. I mean, I would step in, just like I would have no problem with our government going to liberate slaves or liberate concentration camps or whatever. What I am asking is if it would be a NAP violation or not, just for philosophical information

 

[Origanalist]

Yes seriously. I am simply looking to understand the NAP more. I mean, I would step in, just like I would have no problem with our government going to liberate slaves or liberate concentration camps or whatever. What I am asking is if it would be a NAP violation or not, just for philosophical information

Sorry guy, sometimes I really do believe some people here would debate this in their head until the rape was over and the woman was dead. As for our government "liberating" anyone, well, we see how that turns out. Two different animals.

 

[jcannon98188]

Is it two different animals though? In one case, 1 person is raping 1 person, and you can step in. In the case of let's say WW2 thousands (how many nazi's were there?) were raping millions, and thousands stepped in to stop it.

 

[TheGrinch]

Is it two different animals though? In one case, 1 person is raping 1 person, and you can step in. In the case of let's say WW2 thousands (how many nazi's were there?) were raping millions, and thousands stepped in to stop it.

The difference is the former is a direct threat to your citizens, whereas the latter does not necessarily pose a direct threat to your country's (or locale's for the minarchists/anarchists) citizens.

To me, this is more question of non-interventionism, not NAP, and as we all know foreign interventionism only leads to undesirable consequences.

 

[Todd]

1 person making the choice to stop someone from raping another is not the same as a Nation conscripting a million men to end a Rape 5000 miles away in Germany.

 

[jmdrake]

Hey guys, I was thinking about this today when I was reading about WW2. Following NAP, would a country be justified in invading a country in order to liberate people from slave camps or to stop genocide? I am not talking about "liberating" them like we did in Afghan and Iraq. What I mean is countries like North Korea, or WW2 Germany (if we knew about the concentration camps beforehand) would it be a violation of the NAP for America to send it's armies to that nation and liberate those people? Or what if you were walking down a street and see a woman being raped or beaten or robbed or any number of violent crimes. Would it be a NAP violation to intervene to save that woman?

If you put up the money to hire mercenaries to go liberate North Korea, as long as it's clear that these are jcannon98188's mercs so that there's no blowback to me, I have no problem with it.

 

[jmdrake]

Is it two different animals though? In one case, 1 person is raping 1 person, and you can step in. In the case of let's say WW2 thousands (how many nazi's were there?) were raping millions, and thousands stepped in to stop it.

Well here's where knowing a little bit of history helps. WW 2 wouldn't never have happened without or intervention in WW 1. And WW 2 set up the rise of communism in Eastern Europe, which led to the rise of jihadism which we funded to fight communism.