The NAP

Theocrat said:
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?
Click to expand...

What makes such a principle intelligible is the works of people like Murray Rothbard who observe the natures of man and use their reason to put forth a consistent doctrine of ethics. People may some day adopt this doctrine just as they have adopted other forms of guidance for what is right and wrong. Rejecting the coercive monopoly state just happens to be particularly radical considering how we're all raised with the assumption that individual sovereignty and private property rights must be violated to ensure the state's existence.
 
Taking It One Step Further

mudhoney said:
What makes such a principle intelligible is the works of people like Murray Rothbard who observe the natures of man and use their reason to put forth a consistent doctrine of ethics. People may some day adopt this doctrine just as they have adopted other forms of guidance for what is right and wrong. Rejecting the coercive monopoly state just happens to be particularly radical considering how we're all raised with the assumption that individual sovereignty and private property rights must be violated to ensure the state's existence.
Click to expand...

Who is Murray Rothbard? Why should I listen to him (especially when his reasoning precludes God having anything to say about it)? He's not an absolute authority on making principles intelligible. As a matter of fact, there have been better economists and philosophers than him in history who can make such principles even more intelligible and reasonable. How was the NAP understood ere the world knew a Murray Rothbard?
 
Theocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

The NAP and Jesus are NOT competitors nor either/or contradictions.
 
Last edited:
Theocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the NAP, but under Rothbardian libertarianism the owners of the school have every right to defend it with force. Since the criminal has initiated force against the property and persons of others they have forfeited their own rights, and can be punished with force by whatever means. The topic of just punishment is another story, but I would think by murdering they have lost their right to live themselves. The fate of people who violate property rights may vary depending on the community involved.

I don't see everyone as sinners who would do the worst possible things if not forced to fund certain institutions. There are bad people, but the overall tendency of people guided by reason, which I believe clearly tends toward social co-operation to achieve economic ends, rather than the financially and socially expensive act of violence.
 
"The existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed to exist." -- Stefan Molyneux
 
Last edited:
Truth Warrior said:
"The existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed to exist." -- Stefan Molyneux
Click to expand...

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?" ~Will Rogers

;)
[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif][/FONT]
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?" ~Will Rogers[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif];)[/FONT]
Click to expand...
We're not going to last anywhere near as long as Rome did.<IMHO> Nor as long as the Neanderthals for that matter. :(
 
Last edited:
Does it strike anyone as odd that the same person who is arguing against aggressiveness has repeatedly used insulting and passive-aggressiveness to argue his point in this thread?
 
Theocrat said:
Who is Murray Rothbard? Why should I listen to him (especially when his reasoning precludes God having anything to say about it)? He's not an absolute authority on making principles intelligible. As a matter of fact, there have been better economists and philosophers than him in history who can make such principles even more intelligible and reasonable. How was the NAP understood ere the world knew a Murray Rothbard?
Click to expand...

I don't consider God an absolute authority on anything, nor any man. I use reason to formulate what is right and what is wrong based on my experiences in life. Every person does so to some degree whether they believe in a god or not, because it's a part of being human. The ethics put forth in the name of a god just happen to be much more popular than the ethics put forth by a Rothbard. To me that doesn't qualify any person or faith-based higher power as an authority on anything.

Personally I can't fathom why some people can ethically be immune to laws that are otherwise commonplace among the masses. For instance, the legislator is currently allowed to seize other people's property and use it to murder thousands of innocent people without persecution. This is how the state works. It is a minority of the population laying down arbitrary laws that they themselves do not have to follow. I doubt god has endowed them with some sort of divinity that would justify even the slightest ethical privilege over other men.
 
Stepping on Stefan

Truth Warrior said:
"The existence of evil can never justify the existence of the State. If there is no evil, the State is unnecessary. If evil exists, the State is far too dangerous to be allowed to exist." -- Stefan Molyneux
Click to expand...

Once again, Stefan Molyneux confuses the institution itself with the people involved with the institution. There is a difference between the two. Also, it needs to be pointed out that evil is not an entity in and of itself. Evil is simply a lack of good. The State is good because it is ordained by an omnibenevolent God, and God calls good people (as He defines it) to be involved with the institution in order to ensure its original purposes and jurisdictions are honored and kept. When evil people get involved with the institution (in this case, the State), then it is the duty of good people to get rid of them and return good people to those positions of public service. That's why we have elections.
 
Theocrat said:
Once again, Stefan Molyneux confuses the institution itself with the people involved with the institution. There is a difference between the two. Also, it needs to be pointed out that evil is not an entity in and of itself. Evil is simply a lack of good. The State is good because it is ordained by an omnibenevolent God, and God calls good people (as He defines it) to be involved with the institution in order to ensure its original purposes and jurisdictions are honored and kept. When evil people get involved with the institution (in this case, the State), then it is the duty of good people to get rid of them and return good people to those positions of public service. That's why we have elections.
Click to expand...
We've been all through that "institution" vs. "people" stuff before. :p Take away the people and there is NO institution. ;)
 
The Consequences of Departing From God

mudhoney said:
I don't consider God an absolute authority on anything, nor any man. I use reason to formulate what is right and what is wrong based on my experiences in life. Every person does so to some degree whether they believe in a god or not, because it's a part of being human. The ethics put forth in the name of a god just happen to be much more popular than the ethics put forth by a Rothbard. To me that doesn't qualify any person or faith-based higher power as an authority on anything.

Personally I can't fathom why some people can ethically be immune to laws that are otherwise commonplace among the masses. For instance, the legislator is currently allowed to seize other people's property and use it to murder thousands of innocent people without persecution. This is how the state works. It is a minority of the population laying down arbitrary laws that they themselves do not have to follow. I doubt god has endowed them with some sort of divinity that would justify even the slightest ethical privilege over other men.
Click to expand...

So what? Just because one doesn't consider God an absolute authority on anything doesn't dethrone Him from that authority. It just means that person is living in rebellion against God's authority. I, too, believe in using reason to make good decisions in my life, but reason is universal, being justified by God's thinking and standards of cogent thought, not each man's opinion on what he considers to be reasonable and unreasonable. When that becomes the case, reason is no more reason--it is mere opinion. The ethics put forth by God are obviously more popular than Rothbard's because God has supremely more authority to speak on such matters.

Let me tell you why people make themselves "ethically immune to certain laws" which they place upon others. It is because men are sinful, and they will do what want to, even if it means being inconsistent with their own principles, let alone God's principles. God doesn't call us to have ungodly rulers over us, but when people themselves are ungodly and arbitrary, then the necessary consequences from this is that we will have ungodly rulers over us, especially in our system of government. Good fruit cannot come forth from bad trees. Sadly, this is the punishment which God instills on a people who live in disobedience and defiance against Him. So, rather getting angry with God, we should get angry with ourselves for trying to be ethically autonomous from God.
 
Theocrat said:
So what? Just because one doesn't consider God an absolute authority on anything doesn't dethrone Him from that authority. It just means that person is living in rebellion against God's authority. I, too, believe in using reason to make good decisions in my life, but reason is universal, being justified by God's thinking and standards of cogent thought, not each man's opinion on what he considers to be reasonable and unreasonable. When that becomes the case, reason is no more reason--it is mere opinion. The ethics put forth by God are obviously more popular than Rothbard's because God has supremely more authority to speak on such matters.

Let me tell you why people make themselves "ethically immune to certain laws" which they place upon others. It is because men are sinful, and they will do what want to, even if it means being inconsistent with their own principles, let alone God's principles. God doesn't call us to have ungodly rulers over us, but when people themselves are ungodly and arbitrary, then the necessary consequences from this is that we will have ungodly rulers over us, especially in our system of government. Good fruit cannot come forth from bad trees. Sadly, this is the punishment which God instills on a people who live in disobedience and defiance against Him. So, rather getting angry with God, we should get angry with ourselves for trying to be ethically autonomous from God.
Click to expand...

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Josephus and the Origin of the State[/FONT]
 
What is Your Meaning?

LibertyEagle said:
Does it strike anyone as odd that the same person who is arguing against aggressiveness has repeatedly used insulting and passive-aggressiveness to argue his point in this thread?
Click to expand...

Although I understand what you're trying to say, what is "passive-aggressiveness"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
US senator says rights come from the government
Replies
4
Views
104
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
The Right to be Left Alone
Replies
1
Views
26
acptulsa
acptulsa
osan
Dump The NAP And Greet The NTP
Replies
2
Views
361
osan
osan
PAF
Masters of Our Fate, Captains of Our Souls
Replies
0
Views
90
PAF
PAF
PAF
The First Cause of Modern War is the Modern State
Replies
0
Views
84
PAF
PAF
Back
Top