The silly non-aggression principal

[Berzerker]

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.

Thats a tough religion to follow... forgiving trespassers aint easy when their sins cause immense pain.

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 sword symbolizes the cleaving of family ties as converts anger traditionalists. Jesus knew his way would separate families and friends and result in violence.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Liberalism and with it libertarianism is all about not trying to answer the question what the best possible society could look like, by answering that we should delegate this question to the individual.
Of course, that is not true. When put into practice, a direct answer to this question is inevitable. Weather you want to discuss how a society should look like or not, a society you will have. The trick of liberalism is to distract from this by keeping the focus on the level of the individual while staying perfectly abstract. And that happens by discussing principles. Like property. Or rights. Or economic chances. What kind of society this actually means is of no direct concern. Only those principles.
That is so with liberalism, and hence of course it is so with libertarianism.
Therefor, that any strain of liberalism, and in particular an extreme and even more simplified strain, shrugs off the question what this actually means for the individual, should come with no surprise. It is not to be discussed.

 

[Lexicus]

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?

As far as I am aware, every state claims a monopoly on legitimate violence in the territory under its jurisdiction. A government like the one we have in the US is pretty good at enforcing that claim...an example of a government that is not in a position to enforce that claim is Syria's.

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.

You are confusing the source of the state's legitimacy with its monopoly on legitimate use of force. Self-defense is an example of individuals being allowed to use force because the state says it's okay for them to do so. If you believe that the state in the US does not claim a monopoly on violence, I invite you to go outside and punch someone in the face in view of a cop. If you get arrested, I'd say it proves my point.

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

No.

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.

Well, I would rather slavery and genocide be perpetrated by a majority than by a minority, certainly. But as I also believe in liberal limitations on what the state is allowed to do, so I think this question is unfair.

The real libertarians would seize all the property?

No.

 

[Perfection]

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?

(For the hypothetical's sake we can assume that the man parks the boat somewhere where the island owner can retrieve it - the island owner has multiple boats so isn't left stranded)

I'm not really intent on showing that NAP is flawed, my intent is to show that libertarianism is flawed, if NAP doesn't support libertarianism than I have no quarrel with it.

But let's focus on the Island owner. Has he done anything wrong in subjecting the man to a period that is akin to slavery? Was he acting aggressively?

 

[Berzerker]

As far as I am aware, every state claims a monopoly on legitimate violence in the territory under its jurisdiction. A government like the one we have in the US is pretty good at enforcing that claim...an example of a government that is not in a position to enforce that claim is Syria's.

Where does ours make that claim? It aint in the Constitution... Self defense is legitimate violence.

You are confusing the source of the state's legitimacy with its monopoly on legitimate use of force.

The state's legitimacy derives from the source, ie consent of the governed.

Self-defense is an example of individuals being allowed to use force because the state says it's okay for them to do so. If you believe that the state in the US does not claim a monopoly on violence, I invite you to go outside and punch someone in the face in view of a cop. If you get arrested, I'd say it proves my point.

Punching someone in the face violates the NAP and the cop's legitimacy to act stems from the victim's moral authority. So now we've gone from a state monopoly of force to people 'allowed' to defend themselves? It aint a state monopoly any more if non-state actors can use violence legitimately. You got the cart before the horse, the people had the right of self defense before government came into existence.

No.

You said private property is a coercive institution, but I'm not coercing you if I buy property with my wages? Does that mean only some private property is a coercive institution? If public property is obtained with taxes coerced from people, is that public property a coercive institution?

Well, I would rather slavery and genocide be perpetrated by a majority than by a minority, certainly. But as I also believe in liberal limitations on what the state is allowed to do, so I think this question is unfair.

Wow... So might makes righter? You were criticizing libertarians for placing a limit on 'democracy', but its unfair when you're asked about the limits you place on it?

No.

What are you gonna do with all that property then?

 

[Berzerker]

(For the hypothetical's sake we can assume that the man parks the boat somewhere where the island owner can retrieve it - the island owner has multiple boats so isn't left stranded)

I'm not really intent on showing that NAP is flawed, my intent is to show that libertarianism is flawed, if NAP doesn't support libertarianism than I have no quarrel with it.

But let's focus on the Island owner. Has he done anything wrong in subjecting the man to a period that is akin to slavery? Was he acting aggressively?

yes and no

 

[Perfection]

yes and no

If the non-aggression principle does not prevent a man from effectively enslaving another via such an exploitative arrangement then maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be.

 

[civver_764]

If the non-aggression principle does not prevent a man from effectively enslaving another via such an exploitative arrangement then maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be.

That's not enslavement. Slavery is where you threaten violence if somebody doesn't do what you want them to do. What that man does is just offering to exchange goods for labor. Assuming that man had legal ownership over the island, every western state would approve of what he's doing.

 

[Perfection]

That's not enslavement. Slavery is where you threaten violence if somebody doesn't do what you want them to do.

I said "effective enslavement" in order emphasize the coercive and exploitative nature without getting hung up on technicalities. The reason the man does not leave the Island is because the owner will not give him access to the means to do so and he is being forced to work for no pay under threat of starvation and death. Whether or not it fits a technical definition of enslavement, it is clearly wrong.

What that man does is just offering to exchange goods for labor. Assuming that man had legal ownership over the island, every western state would approve of what he's doing.

No, this sort of exploitative work arrangement would be generally considered illegal. For instance, it would violate minimum wage laws. It would probably fall under some form of unlawful detention as well.

 

[FriendlyFire]

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?

The Federal government dosnt have a monoploy on force ? and all the Libeterians are all paying their taxs voluntarily ?
States going to war is natural occurance in a Libeterian utopeia with the NAP ? Why switch to Libeterianism then ?
As third world country Pakistain once said, better that Millions should die of starvation so the state can build nuclear weapons, and that country is certainly safe from invasion, terrorism and poverty not so much
Perhaps somaila would be a better example where drug crops dominate the countries argiculture production while the mass of population starve to death ?

Oh I see Libeteriasim think that legalising the drug trade would stop these massive drug organisations, because unregulated corporations with there own army would step in the fill to vacum, while the government is less powerful and wont be corrupted by drug money in anyway and wont end up like a nacro state. And certainly neighbouring countries affect by the Libeterian states drugs wont do anything because Liberterians are completely blameless

 

[El_Machinae]

What was the obvious libertarian solution? I'm not seeing the obviousness here.

Sorry for the delay.

The libertarian solution is to use voluntary mechanisms.

If Ebola is a threat to human health, prosperity, and trade AS WELL AS a threat to personal liberties, then libertarian philosophy has an easy solution.

You pay money so that people who are potentially infected are motivated to seek quarantine and care. No government. No taxes. You pay for the security that you want. Proactively, while it's cheap.

But 'libertarians' didn't do this. They wanted to increase border security so that people from infected zones couldn't get to where they personally were. And then then wanted to increase all type of bureaucratic powers in order to make it harder for people to travel. And then they're stunned that people are horrified at being trapped in infected zones and want to leave. And then they're stunned that people are motivated to leave sub-par quarantine. So, of course, the 'libertarians' wanted more guards to have more access to violence to stop the spread of people they were worried about

The easy solution "Bribe people to seek treatment by providing proper care resources and support" honestly never occurred to 'libertarians'.

We had MSF screaming for help as they rushed into the inferno. And they screamed that it was getting harder and harder to isolate those suspected of infection, because the quarantine zones were known to be subpar medical treatment.

It was nearly entirely coordinated leftist responses that finally solved the Ebola crisis. And then the 'libertarians' could go back to whinging about the government in safety. And when they actually had a chance to show how their 'system' was actually superior ... crickets.

It fails as a moral system, because the people who claim to believe it very obviously don't believe it.

 

[Lexicus]

But 'libertarians' didn't do this. They wanted to increase border security so that people fr\om infected zones couldn't get to where they personally were. And then then wanted to increase all type of bureaucratic powers in order to make it harder for people to travel. And then they're stunned that people are horrified at being trapped in infected zones and want to leave. And then they're stunned that people are motivated to leave sub-par quarantine. So, of course, the 'libertarians' wanted more guards to have more access to violence to stop the spread of people they were worried about

Do you wonder why this might be?

 

[Berzerker]

I didn't know libertarians were in charge of an ebola outbreak

If the non-aggression principle does not prevent a man from effectively enslaving another via such an exploitative arrangement then maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be.

I dont speak for the principle, if the island owner violated it then I'm wrong. But I dont think that'll be your opinion if you get attacked by someone, you wont be thinking about the island when you defend yourself. Somebody's violating the NAP and you're his victim. Does the island owner have to feed and house the man and then return him to the mainland without compensation?

The Federal government dosnt have a monoploy on force ? and all the Libeterians are all paying their taxs voluntarily ?
States going to war is natural occurance in a Libeterian utopeia with the NAP ? Why switch to Libeterianism then ?

As third world country Pakistain once said, better that Millions should die of starvation so the state can build nuclear weapons, and that country is certainly safe from invasion, terrorism and poverty not so much
Perhaps somaila would be a better example where drug crops dominate the countries argiculture production while the mass of population starve to death ?

Oh I see Libeteriasim think that legalising the drug trade would stop these massive drug organisations, because unregulated corporations with there own army would step in the fill to vacum, while the government is less powerful and wont be corrupted by drug money in anyway and wont end up like a nacro state. And certainly neighbouring countries affect by the Libeterian states drugs wont do anything because Liberterians are completely blameless

Muslim theocracies are not libertarian

 

[FriendlyFire]

Muslim theocracies are not libertarian

Of course, nuclear weapons developed and maintained by states with GDP one sixth that of Pakistan
Definitely no one will starve in Libertarian country

How would that work ?

 

[Perfection]

I dont speak for the principle, if the island owner violated it then I'm wrong. But I dont think that'll be your opinion if you get attacked by someone, you wont be thinking about the island when you defend yourself. Somebody's violating the NAP and you're his victim.

I won't be thinking of the Island or the non-aggression principle. My thoughts will be much more pragmatic.

But you should not be satisfied with the non-aggression principle working merely in one situation. If one proposes that the NAP is something that should not be violated and should guide moral behavior, then it should be able to handle cases like my exploitative Island case. If not, it's not a particularly good principle to stand by.

Does the island owner have to feed and house the man and then return him to the mainland without compensation?

If I were in such a position as the Island owner I would not ask for compensation. However, I'm not saying the Island owner shouldn't be chided for attempting to receive compensation. For instance, perhaps a reasonable day's work ought cover the food and transportation costs. The reason the Island owner should be condemned is he's being cruelly unfair and exploitative by withholding the man's needs in order get him to do his bidding.

 

[El_Machinae]

I didn't know libertarians were in charge of an ebola outbreak

They weren't. Obviously.

But they overwhelmingly failed to propose or enact libertarian win/win solutions throughout the entire crises.

I watched. They just wanted more government to step in and for more bureaucrats to have more power.

Their ideology failed, because they failed to see that it offered ideal outcomes if they'd pushed for them.

 

[civver_764]

They weren't. Obviously.

But they overwhelmingly failed to propose or enact libertarian win/win solutions throughout the entire crises.

I watched. They just wanted more government to step in and for more bureaucrats to have more power.

Their ideology failed, because they failed to see that it offered ideal outcomes if they'd pushed for them.

I don't get your point, honestly. It seems like the ideology did not fail at all, the problem is that people didn't apply the ideology. So the solution is not to avoid libertarianism, but rather to apply it more in the future.

 

[Lexicus]

Punching someone in the face violates the NAP and the cop's legitimacy to act stems from the victim's moral authority. So now we've gone from a state monopoly of force to people 'allowed' to defend themselves? It aint a state monopoly any more if non-state actors can use violence legitimately. You got the cart before the horse, the people had the right of self defense before government came into existence.

Non-state actors can use violence 'legitimately' only if the state says their violence is 'legitimate.' This is perfectly consistent with the idea that the state claims a monopoly on legitimate force. The monopoly on force includes a monopoly on authorizing the use of force by other parties.

You said private property is a coercive institution, but I'm not coercing you if I buy property with my wages? Does that mean only some private property is a coercive institution? If public property is obtained with taxes coerced from people, is that public property a coercive institution?

Certainly taxes are coercive. The state is coercive. Private property is coercive for this reason:

The problem with property rights is that, at an individual level, it's really this all the way down - just an endless recursion of disputes which have traditionally been resolved in favor of the party with the most weapons.

In the United States for example, literally every single bit of land in the country was stolen from Native Americans. And much of the country's economy was built with labor stolen from black people. At base, private property is about using force to prevent others from using or occupying the property you claim...and to imagine that property can exist without the (coercive-by-nature) state is ludicrous.

Wow... So might makes righter? You were criticizing libertarians for placing a limit on 'democracy', but its unfair when you're asked about the limits you place on it?

I don't believe that limits on state action are limits on democracy - they are essential to democracy.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't get your point, honestly. It seems like the ideology did not fail at all, the problem is that people didn't apply the ideology. So the solution is not to avoid libertarianism, but rather to apply it more in the future.

It failed because 'libertarians' chose to not apply libertarian principles when they were actually appropriate. Its logic didn't fail. It failed as an ideology. 'Libertarians' showed that all of their talk failed to convince even themselves

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm distinguishing between the ideology, which actually failed to convince people who claimed to hold it, and the underlying principles that are merely axioms.

It failed to be transmissible. So it fails the real world test