The silly non-aggression principal

[Berzerker]

Oh your are one of those libertarians, where its ok for a central Federal government, with a monopoly on force and the rights to use "force" to collect taxes. How "far" back in time Libertarian are you ?
1920s lasisse fair Libertarian ? 1910 Miner wars Libertarian ? 1870s Slave era Libertarian ?

Are you also ok for Federal government to suppress "rebellions" using force for example lets say your libertarian friends of the 1700s kind want to declare independence and form a new state
Dose the so called "Non aggression" principle side are you on

Are you also for Federal government to suppress "Opium" using so called "force" ?
Which kind of free market libertarian for or against free trade in drugs and other vices ?

I dont believe government should have a monopoly on force. Do you? Rights belong to people, powers belong to government. If a tax is justified, then using force to collect it may also be justified. If people wanted to form a new state, fine with me. But why does that require a rebellion? Drugs should be legal.

 

[Lexicus]

I dont believe government should have a monopoly on force. Do you?

How can this be accomplished except by abolishing the government?

 

[Berzerker]

Let's say that the ownership of the item is disputed. The so-called robber could be reclaiming what is rightfully his only to be threatened by an illegitimate possessor. (We could think of a case where someone is trying to retrieve property bought with counterfeit currency)

Then the so-called robber was actually the victim of theft and they were entitled to their property... Most of our laws are already based on the non-aggression principle.

So what we now we have two claims, that of the taker, vs. that of the possessor. To figure out who it really belongs to we need to assess the validity of both claims. As I see it the non-aggression principle doesn't help resolve the dispute. We just slap the label of aggressor on whoever we feel happens to have the less legitimate claim.

The only way to resolve the dispute is with the non-aggression principle, that helps us determine which claim is legitimate. Would you prefer 'might makes right'?

My claim isn't that the non-aggression principle is wrong per se, but that it's not a particularly useful means of determining who gets what, and that it's liable for abuse.

If I rob you, how else do we determine who gets what if not by identifying aggressor and victim?

 

[Berzerker]

How can this be accomplished except by abolishing the government?

Government derives its moral authority to act from the people. If you have the right to use force under certain circumstances, then government has the moral authority to act on your behalf. If there is a monopoly on force, the people have it and government acquires (shares) it from them.

 

[Perfection]

Then the so-called robber was actually the victim of theft and they were entitled to their property... Most of our laws are already based on the non-aggression principle.

The only way to resolve the dispute is with the non-aggression principle, that helps us determine which claim is legitimate. Would you prefer 'might makes right'?

If I rob you, how else do we determine who gets what if not by identifying aggressor and victim?

Property rights issues don't always have a clear cut case of aggressor and victim. For instance, in the case of someone dying without a will, how should we divide his estate? Non-aggression principle doesn't help out with that sort of dispute.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I dont believe government should have a monopoly on force. Do you? Rights belong to people, powers belong to government. If a tax is justified, then using force to collect it may also be justified. If people wanted to form a new state, fine with me. But why does that require a rebellion? Drugs should be legal.

How is the government going to collect taxes, enforce laws, enforce court rulings without a monopoly on force ? How would this actually work in Libertarian country ???
If you allow Balkanisation how soon before you end up with Chinese annexation rolling up your tiny states with there own tiny standing militias ? Short of a perfect balance of power states will go to war with each other

As for free opium trade without a government that has a monopoly on force, I suggest visiting Mexico and bring a lot of lube

 

[Lexicus]

Government derives its moral authority to act from the people. If you have the right to use force under certain circumstances, then government has the moral authority to act on your behalf. If there is a monopoly on force, the people have it and government acquires (shares) it from them.

This doesn't answer my question.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Time to trot out one of my favorites that made me cringe even back when I was more libertarian leaning.

but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

When you've gone this far astray, one of your premises is mistaken. Period.

In this case, it's simple: Non-aggression is a good rule of thumb in most cases, but it's not a good 'core' moral principal. It is simply not up to the task of being the "star of the show."

I would hold that I am still relatively libertarian, but I would perhaps put (personal liberty/NAP) at #2 or #3 in my moral hierarchy rather than #1. Now I have to find my opinion as to what #1 should be, and that's a more interesting question.

 

[Lexicus]

The greatest paragon of NAP-morality is Robert Nozick's argument that the free society would permit people to sell themselves into slavery

 

[AlpsStranger]

The greatest paragon of NAP-morality is Robert Nozick's argument that the free society would permit people to sell themselves into slavery

So I just have to earn some money and hire some guys from a poor neighborhood and start explaining to them that I'll triple their pay if their attractive wives agree to "marry" me. I'll basically be Negan but without having to have the balls to actually cave people's heads in or burn their faces off with irons.

It's basically tailor made for people who are sociopaths who lack physical courage.

 

[Lexicus]

It's a voluntary contract, and we all know that society has no right to interfere with voluntary contracts between individuals!

 

[Akka]

Time to trot out one of my favorites that made me cringe even back when I was more libertarian leaning.
[...]
When you've gone this far astray, one of your premises is mistaken. Period.

Holy cow, there was actually someone saying that unironically ? :what:
I... well, I don't know. I don't think I can actually find words there.

I would hold that I am still relatively libertarian, but I would perhaps put (personal liberty/NAP) at #2 or #3 in my moral hierarchy rather than #1. Now I have to find my opinion as to what #1 should be, and that's a more interesting question.

I'm sure there is countless people who would be more than happy to suggest something here depending on their personal opinions

 

[Berzerker]

Property rights issues don't always have a clear cut case of aggressor and victim. For instance, in the case of someone dying without a will, how should we divide his estate? Non-aggression principle doesn't help out with that sort of dispute.

Yeah, If no aggression is involved we dont need to identify violators of the NAP.

How is the government going to collect taxes, enforce laws, enforce court rulings without a monopoly on force ? How would this actually work in Libertarian country ??? If you allow Balkanisation how soon before you end up with Chinese annexation rolling up your tiny states with there own tiny standing militias ? Short of a perfect balance of power states will go to war with each other

As for free opium trade without a government that has a monopoly on force, I suggest visiting Mexico and bring a lot of lube

The government does all that now and it doesn't have a monopoly on force. States have been going to war for as long as states have existed, but China hasn't rolled up any states armed with nukes. Mexico has a free opium trade? Now you're blaming libertarianism for a drug war run by Democrats and Republicans and their Mexican allies?

This doesn't answer my question.

I said if a monopoly on force exists, it belongs to the people and is shared by a government acting on their behalf. You haven't explained why government must be abolished if it shares the legitimate use of force with the people, our government does that now. How did you guys get the idea government has a monopoly on force?

The greatest paragon of NAP-morality is Robert Nozick's argument that the free society would permit people to sell themselves into slavery

People do that everyday, its called working for a living.

 

[Perfection]

So, Berzerker, what do you make of the following situation on where the NAP stands.

A shipwrecked man comes ashore an Island. The island is owned by a rather nasty man, a greedy evil man in fact.

Seeing an opportunity he refuses to take the man to the mainland, rather he makes him to work long grueling hours just for the basic food he needs to survive. The owner doesn't threaten him per se, he just says, "you don't work, you don't eat". The owner is only doing this so he can become even richer, he would be just fine without exploiting the man.

Eventually, the man finds where the owner hides the boat keys and takes it to the mainland.

Is the man a thief, did he violate the non-agression principle? What say you?

 

[Lexicus]

I said if a monopoly on force exists, it belongs to the people and is shared by a government acting on their behalf. You haven't explained why government must be abolished if it shares the legitimate use of force with the people, our government does that now. How did you guys get the idea government has a monopoly on force?

I dont believe government should have a monopoly on force. Do you?

This statement from you (which I quoted to start this exchange) would suggest that you do believe that government (which I took to mean "the state") has a monopoly on force.
In my understanding, the state is essentially defined as that body which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society. I am not sure how you take the monopoly on violence out of the hands of the state since doing so would mean that the state is no longer "the state".
Ignoring the previously-outlined logical contradiction for the sake of argument, I'm also fairly interested in how a society in which "the state" doesn't hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence would work. How would you avoid constant violent confrontations between the agents of the state and non-state actors? How would you avoid violence between multiple non-state actors?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Is the man a thief, did he violate the non-agression principle? What say you?

The Libertarian is boxed in and must say yes.

I, on the other hand, will strangle the greedy fudge owner in his sleep and use him to feed the local fish population.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm sure there is countless people who would be more than happy to suggest something here depending on their personal opinions

My #1 would be something like the greatest flourishing and meaningful personal freedom for the vast majority

So universal healthcare clearly violates individualism, but it also provides the greatest flourishing and material day-to-day freedom. I.E. Not having to cancel your vacation to pay for your X-rays or having to keep a job you hate to avoid changing insurance, etc. So I'm in favor.

On the other hand, some laws are clearly the other way around. There might be some marginal benefit around the edges to the war on drugs, but it's not worth the cost.

I think perhaps I'd call the view I'm approaching "Functional Libertarianism." Providing the most freedom, for the most people, from both the private boss's coercion and the government's excesses. It's not philosophically clean or satisfying but I think it's way better in practice.

 

[Akka]

I'd go for the very simple "justice", or "fairness", but the problem would then be about its exact definition, so it certainly wouldn't be the end ^^

 

[Borachio]

I mean, hundreds of millions of Christians have spent two thousand years believing quite sincerely that at least one person lived by those principles, and that the rest of us could aspire to it, and it seems unfair to denounce them all without qualification as "utterly and completely stupid", no matter how seriously you take your personal vendetta against Rand Paul.

It seems a little strange to me to characterize Christianity as simply non-aggression. Or using violence only as a final resort in self-defence. (How many wars haven't been fought in self-professed self-defence, by the way?)

I mean, it's not untrue to say it is non-aggressive (mostly).

But Christainity does rather take it to another level, I think (speaking as an outrageously underqualified outsider).

Christians are not only supposed to not be non-violent.

And not only non-violent in the face of violence.

They're also supposed to actively work for the good of their aggressors.

Those poor innocent moneylenders in the temple would beg to disagree.

But yes, of course.

And let's not forget the whole "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." business.

The moneylenders and the quote above are the only significant pieces advocating violence in the NT that I can think of, off the top of my head. Though I expect there are others.

And haven't people, many of them self-professed Christians, exploited them to the maximum for the last 2000 years? Cor Crikey! Makes you think, eh?

My #1 would be something like the greatest flourishing and meaningful personal freedom for the vast majority

Well, fine. I think you pretty much answered your own question already.

I do think, though, that as an aim it's rather diffuse.

Why not just work for the good of other people around you? And let the bigger picture take of itself?

Or why not be even more particular, and just be nice to everyone you encounter?

I mean, this would be not only a good thing, it would be eminently doable as well. (Unlike, perhaps, "promoting the greatest flourishing and meaningful personal freedom for the vast majority.")

And if everyone else was actively being nice as well (and why wouldn't they, with you having started the ball rolling?), then there's your greatest flourishing right there already.

 

[Berzerker]

So, Berzerker, what do you make of the following situation on where the NAP stands.

A shipwrecked man comes ashore an Island. The island is owned by a rather nasty man, a greedy evil man in fact.

Seeing an opportunity he refuses to take the man to the mainland, rather he makes him to work long grueling hours just for the basic food he needs to survive. The owner doesn't threaten him per se, he just says, "you don't work, you don't eat". The owner is only doing this so he can become even richer, he would be just fine without exploiting the man.

Eventually, the man finds where the owner hides the boat keys and takes it to the mainland.

Is the man a thief, did he violate the non-agression principle? What say you?

Your objection to the NAP is based on that? I wouldn't call him a thief but he's responsible for returning it, a thief would keep or sell the boat. You seem intent on arguing the NAP is flawed but how would you answer your hypothetical without it? You'd decide who the aggressor was, right?

This statement from you (which I quoted to start this exchange) would suggest that you do believe that government (which I took to mean "the state") has a monopoly on force.

I thought I was responding to somebody who thinks government should have a monopoly on force... I dont know of any government that does, do you?

In my understanding, the state is essentially defined as that body which holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a society. I am not sure how you take the monopoly on violence out of the hands of the state since doing so would mean that the state is no longer "the state".
Ignoring the previously-outlined logical contradiction for the sake of argument, I'm also fairly interested in how a society in which "the state" doesn't hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence would work. How would you avoid constant violent confrontations between the agents of the state and non-state actors? How would you avoid violence between multiple non-state actors?

A 'just' government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. You have the moral authority to defend yourself, that moral authority is how the state becomes legitimate when defending you. Our government doesn't have a monopoly on force now and never did.

Well I tend to claim the mantle of non-aggression through my opposition to such coercive institutions as private property and wage labor. I also tend to laugh when US right-wingers call themselves libertarians.

So when I use my wages to buy property I'm coercing you and you get to take my property?

Ask a US libertarian whether he supports democracy or property rights, and he (almost always a he) will tell you that property rights win every time. Ask him whether the state should take strong action to defend property rights and they will answer yes.

Do you support democracy when the majority decides to commit slavery and genocide? If not, why? If the majority grabbed all the property of people you like would you preach to us about the virtues of mob rule? Well, you might since you're not a fan of property unless you get to divy it up.

The real libertarians are on the left.

The real libertarians would seize all the property?