Sentinelese tribe: Rare footage captures one of world's last uncontacted indigenous people

[Occam's Banana]

So, we become World Police in the name of the NAP? These things have a bad habit of going astray.

You are blowing what I've said way out of proportion.

I have merely said that one is permitted to forcibly intervene in cases of clear NAP violations. [1]

I have also said that it is not required that one do so, and that one may not force others to assist in such interventions. (That last bit pretty much rules out anything even remotely like any kind of "World Police," as that term is generally understood.)

To turn your question back on you: are you contending that no "third person" is permitted to forcibly intervene in cases of, say, murder (either "in progress" or after the fact)?



[1] There is an interesting and critical subtlety here. Notice that I have used the word "clear" to characterize the NAP violations that I am talking about. (I have done so in this post and in posts #53 and #83.) The NAP forbids aggressive (i.e., non-retaliatory) violence, and in many cases, it is not difficult to identify aggressive acts. However, there will always be "fuzzy" edge cases in which it is not "clear" whether a given act is to be considered "aggressive" or not. In order to determine the status of such acts with respect to the NAP, one must supplement the basic definition of "aggression" that comes supplied with the NAP with other things (and note that I said "supplement" and not "replace"). These other things may include factors such as customary law, traditions, social conventions, religious norms, etc. - namely, things that are typically subsumed under the term "culture." Thus, in the case of these "fuzzy" edge cases, it may be that what one culture or society regards as "aggressive" (and therefore actionable under the NAP) is not regarded as "aggressive" by some other culture or society (and therefore not actionable under the NAP). Under those circumstances (i.e., conflicting interpretations of what is "aggressive" on the margin), "cross-cultural" interventions, so to speak, would not be permissible, since it would not be "clear" that a NAP violation had occurred ...

 

[fisharmor]

They are not coming to my home and doing such things. The stranger went where he didn't belong.

This is a giant stumbling block for people who don't advocate statelessness. You're pushing a cliche' here. "We can't have statelessness because people would just be indiscriminately killing each other over nothing." The answer isn't simply to embrace the idea of killing each other over nothing. The answer is to reassure the statist that without the state, people would not behave this way.

We have a fairly large legal experiment in the USA in that we have 50 different methods of dealing with murder. In not one single state is it considered acceptable to kill another person for a simple, unintentional case of trespassing. I will fully admit that this isn't a totally free market of ideas we have going on here. But it's the freest legal market statism has to offer. And in that (relatively) free market, the idea of killing for simple trespass has been resoundingly rejected.

I do not advocate lawlessness: only statelessness. I recognize that statelessness does not preclude lawlessness - I believe that statelessness will create a completely unhindered market for law. I cannot believe that the legal maxim on trespass that will become universal in that market will be indiscriminate killing.

The Sentinalese have a legal monopoly. India has granted it to them. They have condoned killing for simple trespass in that system. I believe the only reason for this is because they have kept their legal monopoly. It is a tragedy that this monopoly is enforced by the state of India.

I would be the bad guy if I went to their home and started murdering them. Especially if I did it in the guise of liberty.

I don't recall anyone talking about killing anyone, except the people on the "prime directive" side. The very first thing I had to say on the subject is that the people who are best suited to it are missionaries.
Send in the people who EXPECT to be shot with arrows, beaten, roasted, or fed to wild animals.
Or rather, don't send them in. Just stop preventing them from going.

Let's not forget that, all you antistate people... It's the state who grants the Sentinelese their legal monopoly, and it's the state who prevents people from challenging their philosophical basis for it.

 

[euphemia]

People should not be left alone to do what they want if what they're doing is unlibertarian

Based on whose standard?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Interestingly enough, one must violate the NAP (trespass) in order to find out if the Sentinelese are violating the NAP.

This brings up another interesting issue often discussed and debated among libertarians.

Would you violate the NAP in order to achieve some desriable or laudable objective?

If you are freezing to death in the woods, would you break into someone else's cabin for shelter? (I would.)

Would you break into a closed pharmacy late at night in order to get a life-saving drug for your child who is in urgent need? (I would.)

Would you trespass in order to prevent a murder? (I might.)

Given the punishment the Sentinelese apply to trespassers in their jurisdiction, that is certainly a disincentive to would-be intervenors ...

 

[William Tell]

As long as there is, in fact, a clear violation of the NAP, then it doesn't matter what the intervenor's private motives might "really" be. He is still permitted to forcibly intervene.

This is what the NAP is for, after all - namely, to determine when force/violence may justifiably be used.

Here's an interesting exercise, try replacing the word NAP in this post with your religious text of choice.

 

[Suzanimal]

This brings up another interesting issue often discussed and debated among libertarians.

Would you violate the NAP in order to achieve some desriable or laudable objective?

Depends on the situation and if arrows are being fired at me.

If you are freezing to death in the woods, would you break into someone else's cabin for shelter? (I would.)

Would you break into a closed pharmacy late at night in order to get a life-saving drug for your child who is in urgent need? (I would.)

Without hesitation. However, I would try to make it right after the emergency was over.

Would you trespass in order to prevent a murder? (I might.)

Depends on the person. I've got a bit of a mean streak.

Given the punishment the Sentinelese apply to trespassers in their jurisdiction, that is certainly a disincentive to would-be intervenors ...

It is and I can't really blame them.

 

[fisharmor]

If you are freezing to death in the woods, would you break into someone else's cabin for shelter?

Interestingly, most states also have laws against booby traps for this explicit reason. You can't booby trap your cabin - or even your house - because there are scenarios where someone else's survival trumps your property right. Again, not cheerleading for the state - this is merely one case where the state's motivation actually was amicably resolving disputes between individuals (even if it does resort to statute to do it).

As a bonus, if you break into that cabin to warm up and you find a bunch of naked kids in dog kennels... well, that's an incentive for people not to do that in their cabins, isn't it? Bottom line: even in a completely rights-oriented, stateless, libertarian society, there are not only good, rights-oriented reasons to respect other people, but there are reasons not to go completely Lord-of-the-Flies on your compound.

Unless, of course, you're the Sentinelese.....

 

[Origanalist]

You are blowing what I've said way out of proportion.

I have merely said that one is permitted to forcibly intervene in cases of clear NAP violations. [1]

I have also said that it is not required that one do so, and that one may not force others to assist in such interventions. (That last bit pretty much rules out anything even remotely like any kind of "World Police," as that term is generally understood.)

To turn your question back on you: are you contending that no "third person" is permitted to forcibly intervene in cases of, say, murder (either "in progress" or after the fact)?



[1] There is an interesting and critical subtlety here. Notice that I have used the word "clear" to characterize the NAP violations that I am talking about. (I have done so in this post and in posts #53 and #83.) The NAP forbids aggressive (i.e., non-retaliatory) violence, and in many cases, it is not difficult to identify aggressive acts. However, there will always be "fuzzy" edge cases in which it is not "clear" whether a given act is to be considered "aggressive" or not. In order to determine the status of such acts with respect to the NAP, one must supplement the basic definition of "aggression" that comes supplied with the NAP with other things (and note that I said "supplement" and not "replace"). These other things may include factors such as customary law, traditions, social conventions, religious norms, etc. - namely, things that are typically subsumed under the term "culture." Thus, in the case of these "fuzzy" edge cases, it may be that what one culture or society regards as "aggressive" (and therefore actionable under the NAP) is not regarded as "aggressive" by some other culture or society (and therefore not actionable under the NAP). Under those circumstances (i.e., conflicting interpretations of what is "aggressive" on the margin), "cross-cultural" interventions, so to speak, would not be permissible, since it would not be "clear" that a NAP violation had occurred ...

To answer your question, no. I'm not saying that. I am however opposed to creating some agency, no matter the rules of engagement, to pursue this objective.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Here's an interesting exercise, try replacing the word NAP in this post with your religious text of choice.

The NAP can't really be analogized with an entire religious text, as religious texts typically supply a wide range of moral dicta, whereas the NAP is only a "single item," so to speak.

But it's not necessarily an "either/or" thing. The NAP might be more or less compatible with any given religious text. As I pointed out in post #101:

[...] there will always be "fuzzy" edge cases in which it is not "clear" whether a given act is to be considered "aggressive" or not. In order to determine the status of such acts with respect to the NAP, one must supplement the basic definition of "aggression" that comes supplied with the NAP with other things (and note that I said "supplement" and not "replace"). These other things may include factors such as customary law, traditions, social conventions, religious norms, etc. - namely, things that are typically subsumed under the term "culture."​

So the NAP may be supplemented by religion - or vice versa, if you prefer to put it the other way around. (And then, of course, there is the also the point that the NAP is itself in a sense a "religious" belief, just as all beliefs are when you reduce them to their ultimate roots.)

In any case, the NAP alone is not sufficient - or, as I put it in post #86, the NAP is not a "theory of everything" ...

 

[Occam's Banana]

If you are freezing to death in the woods, would you break into someone else's cabin for shelter? (I would.)

Would you break into a closed pharmacy late at night in order to get a life-saving drug for your child who is in urgent need? (I would.)

Without hesitation. However, I would try to make it right after the emergency was over.

Exactly.

And if you didn't "make it right" after the emergency was over, it would be justified to use force against you in order to make you "make it right" - because you violated the NAP.

Too many people (both among critics of the NAP and even - or especially - among those who accept and advocate for the NAP) seem to think that the NAP is some kind of preemptive razor with which to decide that this, that or the other thing must not be done. They think that the purpose of the NAP is to dictate beforehand whether some particular action X should not be performed. But while the NAP is certainly useful in that regard, that is not really what it is for. Ultimately, the purpose of the NAP is to determine afterward whether force/violence may justifiably be used by others in response to some action X.

This is a subtle but important distinction. The former position leads to absurdities like "under some circumstances, you should not act to save your own life (or your child's life, or etc.)," which is just ridiculous and cannot reasonably be expected to be adopted by any sane society or sensible individual. The latter position does not.

IOW: The NAP does not say "don't break into a pharmacy to save your child's life" - it says that if you do break into a pharmacy (even to save your child's life), then the pharmacist may use force to defend his property or to acquire restitution.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Lindsey sees something bad he calls in terrorism, you see the same thing you call it aggression. That's the only difference I see.

Are you a pacifist?

If not, when is violence justified?

Based on whose standard?

The libertarian standard, obviously

I would be the bad guy if I went to their home and started murdering them.

Violence is not aggression; killing is not murder.

That you fail to recognize the distinction suggests to me that you're a pacifist.

So, I'll ask you (once again, didn't get a satisfactory response the first time):

Are you a pacifist?

If not, when is violence justified.

 

[William Tell]

Are you a pacifist?

Are you Rudy Giuliani? The answer to your question is no. I'm something called a non-interventionist. There was a guy some of us here have heard about named Ron Paul who made it his life work to explain the difference between things like pacifism, isolationism, and non-interventionism. You could google him.

If not, when is violence justified?

Violence is justified in defense of you or your neighbor. I am far from a pacifist although I love peace. But that doesn't mean that you can twist my belief in the moral right to defending yourself and your loved ones into an endorsement of a policy of intervention and dogooderism around the world. Yes, I wish North Korea, China, and every human soul on planet earth was free and safe. I just recognize that these efforts of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong does not end well. I suggest we establish freedom and peace here instead of searching for evildoers and spreading democracy whatever you as a monarchist would spread.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Would you violate the NAP in order to achieve some desriable or laudable objective?

I say it's justifiable to aggress in order to prevent a greater aggression.

...and I'll bet that everyone here agrees, whether they know it or not.

Consider the judicial system (either the real one or whichever one you envision in your ideal society, state or stateless). It is impossible to determine guilt with absolute certainty. In any real judicial system, innocent people will from time to time be found guilty and wrongfully punished (i.e. aggressed against). The only possible solution to this problem is to not have a judicial system at all, not punish anyone for any crime. But we all (I hope) recognize that such a cure would be far worse than the disease; the end result being much more aggression overall.

The same utilitarian logic can be applied to other situations.

 

[William Tell]

I say it's justifiable to aggress in order to prevent a greater aggression.

...and I'll bet that everyone here agrees, whether they know it or not.

Consider the judicial system (either the real one or whichever one you envision in your ideal society, state or stateless). It is impossible to determine guilt with absolute certainty. In any real judicial system, innocent people will from time to time be found guilty and wrongfully punished (i.e. aggressed against). The only possible solution to this problem is to not have a judicial system at all, not punish anyone for any crime. But we all (I hope) recognize that such a cure would be far worse than the disease; the end result being much more aggression overall.

The same utilitarian logic can be applied to other situations.

Lol that's like saying we all endorse hunting accidents because they happen and the only way to stop them is to not hunt.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Violence is justified in defense of you or your neighbor.

Would you define "neighbor"?

Does this mean the person in the adjacent house, on the same block, in the same town, in the same county...?

Where do you draw the line between "helping a neighbor" (good!) and "foreign intervention" (bad!).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Lol that's like saying we all endorse hunting accidents because they happen and the only way to stop them is to not hunt.

If you support the prosecution of criminals for crimes, knowing that sometimes innocent people will caught up in the process, you are making a judgement that the harm to those innocent people is worth it to prevent the greater harm that would result from letting criminals get away with their crimes.

 

[William Tell]

Would you define "neighbor"?

The same as in the story of the good Samaritan. Could be a friend family member or stranger you see in trouble.

Where do you draw the line between "helping a neighbor" (good!) and "foreign intervention" (bad!).

The exact same place Ron Paul does. Where it goes from individuals helping others to institutional bodies getting involved in big conflicts and nation building where blowback etc becomes an issue. My contention is not that helping someone down the street is moral, and someone in China is not. My contention, like almost every other user on this site is that intervention is a failed policy that does more harm than good in almost every case. Saying your dream interventions are going to be (good!) and Lindsey Graham's are just incidentally (bad!) is just hot air. Sure, free North Korea, R3v. Sure, bring libertarianism and a good culture to the undeveloped world. Good luck, I've got my own fish to fry and unfortunately the bear you poke with your stick is likely going to cause me a new set of problems. That's what history shows us anyway. Maybe you will have better luck.

 

[Suzanimal]

I say it's justifiable to aggress in order to prevent a greater aggression.

...and I'll bet that everyone here agrees, whether they know it or not.

Consider the judicial system (either the real one or whichever one you envision in your ideal society, state or stateless). It is impossible to determine guilt with absolute certainty. In any real judicial system, innocent people will from time to time be found guilty and wrongfully punished (i.e. aggressed against). The only possible solution to this problem is to not have a judicial system at all, not punish anyone for any crime. But we all (I hope) recognize that such a cure would be far worse than the disease; the end result being much more aggression overall.

The same utilitarian logic can be applied to other situations.

I completely agree BUT I don't think it's appropriate in the case of the OP. Just based on what we KNOW - not some hypothetical situation.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The same as in the story of the good Samaritan. Could be a friend family member or stranger you see in trouble.

Therefore, if we see that people on Sentinel Island are in trouble (e.g. are being killed and eaten), it's okay to intervene to help?

The exact same place Ron Paul does. Where it goes from individuals helping others to institutional bodies getting involved in big conflicts and nation building where blowback etc becomes an issue. My contention is not that helping someone down the street is moral, and someone in China is not. My contention, like almost every other user on this site is that intervention is a failed policy that does more harm than good in almost every case.

I'm not talking about US foreign policy, Will.

Have you ever seen me once endorse any of our government's interventions? No, you haven't.

I'm making a broader, ethical point.

If you want to claim that no intervention could actually reduce aggression, in practice, that's fine.

...I disagree, but that's another matter.

All I'm saying now is that, in principle, IF an intervention would reduce aggression, it would be justified.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I completely agree BUT I don't think it's appropriate in the case of the OP. Just based on what we KNOW - not some hypothetical situation.

Completely agree, we know essentially nothing about them.

I never actually endorsed invading their island.

All through this thread I've been speaking in hypotheticals.