The NAP

[idiom]

Thats what TW says.

There is a similar problem with Tolerance. People who proclaim tolerance generally don't want to tolerate non-tolerance.

The principle is also a bit lax in that "Aggression is alright, as long as you didn't start it."

Does the Non-aggression principle involve provoking aggression? Apparently Russia is well within its rights to stop selling Natural Gas to Europe at the drop off a hat. Letting people die in the cold is not in fact aggression.

There are no sins of omission under this principle.

This is apart from the fact that the first person to come along and be slightly aggressive historically has had the advantage everytime. If this was not true we would be living in a libertarian paradise.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I think that people often reject such a concept, possibly because they take a look at history and the state of the world and think that such an idea or principle is just some lofty ideal, just some fluffy stuff, that would be really nice if it were the case, yet since it is perceived as not really practical in the " real world " they toss it aside and continue to engage in the law of the jungle, because why should THEY be the sucker and be taken advantage of, or simply, not get theirs ?

Surely there have been individuals and to some extent, cultures and societies, that have fostered these ideals and even done their best to actually live them. Unless the persons lived extremely isolated from the outside world, not only was it probably a great challenge to manifest this lifestyle, they also probably often endured brutality from the people that didn't get that idea or simply rejected it. So I mean, its hard to blame people for engaging in the game to survive, even foolhardy, as this " jungle principle " is in fact necessary for the development of our species.

It is at once, the very nature of growth, in which things diversify and grow through competition and conquering, and also the source of immense grief ( incurred through this process ) that becomes the impetus for transcending that stage and attaining harmony ( NAP, enlightened culture ). All of this is intrinsically and directly related to the nature and flow of time itself. Spring and Summer exist for the purpose of harvest in the Autumn, transcendence.

So how does the whole world awaken to this principle ? Take a look at the direction and flow of world events, and a scenario starts to become visible.


Having said all that, I do believe that these ideals ( NAP, and actively bettering others ) are indeed the way of the future, and that, it is as wise to do ones best to manifest this in ones life, as it is foolish to try to wash off blood with blood.

Thanks to TW for another thought provoking post !

Your welcome.

It seems to me that we can stay stuck as savages and barbarians until we drive our species to extinction. Or we can choose otherwise, with no guarantees of success. The future starts now. I think the correct choice is obvious and clearly worth a shot. A free society is created one by one.

Thanks!

 

[Truth Warrior]

btw...

TW-

I think that any archist (statist) who reads this would immediately say something like "What? Who is going to keep people from hurting each other or themselves?" The weakness of the piece is that it doesn't give a practical solution for things like this. The uncritical thinker just won't "get" it. Perhaps you could also post another piece by the author that explains some real life/"utilitarian" applications? Good read overall, IMHO. TTYL, sensei.

HB34.

It's an individual choice for individuals to choose or not. I choose for me, the only person I can control, and not for anyone else. I sadly understand that the barbarians and savages just don't get it. That's not really my problem to solve.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Under this utopia if someone breaks their word what happens? I am sure your answer is going to involve some level of force being applied. What level of force is appropriate? Who decides?

What utopia? I saw no promise of utopia in the OP. The choice is up to you. What are YOU going to do?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Why should anyone be obligated to follow the "Non-Aggression Principle?" How could it be enforced on people who wish to not live by it?

Why should anyone be obligated to follow Jesus? In the very same vein, it's a PERSONAL choice and decision for the individual. I thought you just might have already understood that. Why not think of it as an expression of the "Golden Rule"? Sound familiar? It probably would to a Christian.

Your second question clearly shows that you just don't get it.

WWJD?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why should anyone be obligated to follow Jesus? In the very same vein, it's a PERSONAL choice and decision for the individual. I thought you just might have already understood that. Why not think of it as an expression of the "Golden Rule"? Sound familiar? It probably would to a Christian.

Your second question clearly shows that you just don't get it.

I guess passive-aggression is just fine and dandy, eh?

 

[Truth Warrior]

just fine

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

 

[Theocrat]

The NAP is Not Enough

Why should anyone be obligated to follow Jesus? In the very same vein, it's a PERSONAL choice and decision for the individual. I thought you just might have already understood that. Why not think of it as an expression of the "Golden Rule"? Sound familiar? It probably would to a Christian.

Your second question clearly shows that you just don't get it.

WWJD?

One reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because He is the only way mankind can have access to a true and loving relationship with God, receive full forgiveness of sins, and obtain eternal life. Another reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because their souls are at stake. Rejecting Christ has serious and eternal consequences to it. Coming to Christ is not simply a matter of a one-time personal choice; it calls for lifelong perseverance and obedience towards our Creator.

However, following the NAP has no obligation attached to it, especially if one believes we're all here by random chance. Just as animals in nature are aggressive, so human beings are aggressive by instinct. It follows from this line of reasoning that it may be impossible for certain human beings to even follow the NAP because they haven't "evolved" fully to that level yet, if ever.

What about the pragmatist? If it takes aggression to accomplish a goal, then why not go for it? If a person is powerful and rich enough, he can do whatever he wants to get his agenda completed. He is under no obligation to follow "non-aggression" if it achieves an expected end (the end justifies the means).

Once again, you're failure to understand human nature blinds you from seeing that men will not automatically do that which benefits other humans under a system of the NAP. Their hearts need to be changed, first. That will only happen when men hear the Gospel, have their souls changed by the Holy Spirit, and believe what the Gospel says in repentance and faith. That's what Jesus requires men to do, to answer you "WWJD" question. Your internal affects your externals.

Men are not basically good creatures, but the NAP assumes this to be the case in order that it can be followed. As idiom has pointed out, there have been examples in history where slightly aggressive people have had the advantage over others. Stalin immediately comes to mind. How do you get someone like a Josef Stalin to follow the NAP? Do you use aggression, or do you risk your life by telling a powerful dictator, who has everything, how he ought to live? That is the challenge I lay before you in asserting the NAP as a realistic ideal before all men.

 

[Truth Warrior]

One reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because He is the only way mankind can have access to a true and loving relationship with God, receive full forgiveness of sins, and obtain eternal life. Another reason why men are obligated to follow Jesus is because their souls are at stake. Rejecting Christ has serious and eternal consequences to it. Coming to Christ is not simply a matter of a one-time personal choice; it calls for lifelong perseverance and obedience towards our Creator.

However, following the NAP has no obligation attached to it, especially if one believes we're all here by random chance. Just as animals in nature are aggressive, so human beings are aggressive by instinct. It follows from this line of reasoning that it may be impossible for certain human beings to even follow the NAP because they haven't "evolved" fully to that level yet, if ever.

What about the pragmatist? If it takes aggression to accomplish a goal, then why not go for it? If a person is powerful and rich enough, he can do whatever he wants to get his agenda completed. He is under no obligation to follow "non-aggression" if it achieves an expected end (the end justifies the means).

Once again, you're failure to understand human nature blinds you from seeing that men will not automatically do that which benefits other humans under a system of the NAP. Their hearts need to be changed, first. That will only happen when men hear the Gospel, have their souls changed by the Holy Spirit, and believe what the Gospel says in repentance and faith. That's what Jesus requires men to do, to answer you "WWJD" question. Your internal affects your externals.

Men are not basically good creatures, but the NAP assumes this to be the case in order that it can be followed. As idiom has pointed out, there have been examples in history where slightly aggressive people have had the advantage over others. Stalin immediately comes to mind. How do you get someone like a Josef Stalin to follow the NAP? Do you use aggression, or do you risk your life by telling a powerful dictator, who has everything, how he ought to live? That is the challenge I lay before you in asserting the NAP as a realistic ideal before all men.

What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live? Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?

 

[Theocrat]

The NAP Could Be "Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing"

What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live? Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?

Jesus calls us to live towards a Person, not a principle. It's about a covenantal relationship towards our God Who redeems us from sin and gives us the world as an inheritance. Sure, there are principles involved in living unto God, but those principles are justified by a supreme Authority, the God Jehovah. If you want to say certain precepts of the NAP align with the teachings of Christ, that's fine. But the NAP cannot justify itself without an objective authority who makes such a principle intelligible and necessary. Who is that authority, according to proponents of the NAP?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Jesus calls us to live towards a Person, not a principle. It's about a covenantal relationship towards our God Who redeems us from sin and gives us the world as an inheritance. Sure, there are principles involved in living unto God, but those principles are justified by a supreme Authority, the God Jehovah. If you want to say certain precepts of the NAP align with the teachings of Christ, that's fine. But the NAP cannot justify itself without an objective authority who makes such a principle intelligible and necessary. Who is that authority, according to proponents of the NAP?

What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live? Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?

 

[mudhoney]

So the most common complaint about this seems to be that people can't conceive of defense and justice under a system of non-aggression...

Although there is no way to tell what types of systems and institutions would arise in a free-market for justice and defense, there is plenty of libertarian literature our there which covers these topics.

Just passing off the idea of voluntarily funded competition based industry to provide defense and arbitration services is like denying the success of the market in handling other services. The advocates of anarcho-capitalism have never been utopian about it anyways, from what I've seen.

The Ethics of Liberty
For a New Liberty
The Market for Liberty
Libertarian Papers
Journal of Libertarian Studies

 

[Theocrat]

Love is the Keeping of the Law

What did Jesus ORDER you to do, and tell you how to live? Is the NAP closer to what you were COMMANDED to do?

Basically, this:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and, with all thy mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)

However, this is not what the NAP teaches.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for the links!

So the most common complaint about this seems to be that people can't conceive of defense and justice under a system of non-aggression...

Although there is no way to tell what types of systems and institutions would arise in a free-market for justice and defense, there is plenty of libertarian literature our there which covers these topics.

Just passing off the idea of voluntarily funded competition based industry to provide defense and arbitration services is like denying the success of the market in handling other services. The advocates of anarcho-capitalism have never been utopian about it anyways, from what I've seen.

The Ethics of Liberty
For a New Liberty
The Market for Liberty
Libertarian Papers
Journal of Libertarian Studies

 

[Truth Warrior]

Basically, this:



However, this is not what the NAP teaches.

Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.

 

[Theocrat]

Where the NAP Breaks Down

So the most common complaint about this seems to be that people can't conceive of defense and justice under a system of non-aggression...

Although there is no way to tell what types of systems and institutions would arise in a free-market for justice and defense, there is plenty of libertarian literature our there which covers these topics.

Just passing off the idea of voluntarily funded competition based industry to provide defense and arbitration services is like denying the success of the market in handling other services. The advocates of anarcho-capitalism have never been utopian about it anyways, from what I've seen.

The Ethics of Liberty
For a New Liberty
The Market for Liberty
Libertarian Papers
Journal of Libertarian Studies

Justice and defense are not products of the market. We don't gain or lose those based on a law or supply and demand. Justice and defense are always needed in society, especially when that society is made up of sinners. God has ordained that civil governments have that jurisdictional responsibility to handle justice and defense as its legitimate function to protect the innocent and punish evildoers.

Let me ask you this. Suppose some maniac goes into an elementary school and murders all the children in there. How should he be dealt with under the NAP? You can't force him to go to jail because that would be in violation of the NAP. You definitely could not sentence him to death. So, it seems the only alternative would be that you apply some "non-aggressive" measure towards the murderer. Of course, that won't stop him from doing it again because there is no civil restraint being applied to change his behavior, and there is no justice, either.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Justice and defense are not products of the market. We don't gain or lose those based on a law or supply and demand. Justice and defense are always needed in society, especially when that society is made up of sinners. God has ordained that civil governments have that jurisdictional responsibility to handle justice and defense as its legitimate function to protect the innocent and punish evildoers.

Let me ask you this. Suppose some maniac goes into an elementary school and murders all the children in there. How should he be dealt with under the NAP? You can't force him to go to jail because that would be in violation of the NAP. You definitely could not sentence him to death. So, it seems the only alternative would be that you apply some "non-aggressive" measure towards the murderer. Of course, that won't stop him from doing it again because there is no civil restraint being applied to change his behavior, and there is no justice, either.

Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.

 

[Theocrat]

Got Cliff's Notes?

Remedial Reading Assignment ( for comprehension and application ): Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain.

Since I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you can give me an overview or summary of these reading assignments.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Since I have no idea what you're talking about, perhaps you can give me an overview or summary of these reading assignments.

It's in your book, do your homework. Hint: Matthew and Luke. Extra credit given for finding the "Golden Rule".

 

[Theocrat]

I've Done the Homework

It's in your book, do you homework.

Yes. I've read those accounts many times, and I can assure you that Christ's teachings are quite different than the NAP, with little overlap. For one thing, He never tells His disciples to live according to a principle which exists apart from Himself. Christ justifies those "non-aggressive principles" upon Himself, commanding those who love Him to live after Him. That's where I see the difference, epistemologically speaking.