1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The silly non-aggression principal

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by AlpsStranger, May 29, 2017.

  1. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,713
    Location:
    the golf course
    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.
     
    christos200 likes this.
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,225
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    How can this be accomplished except by abolishing the government?
     
  3. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,713
    Location:
    the golf course
    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?
     
  4. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,713
    Location:
    the golf course
    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.
     
  5. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,824
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    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.
     
  6. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,830
    Location:
    Sydney
    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
     
  7. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,225
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    This doesn't answer my question.
     
  8. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    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.

    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.
     
  9. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,225
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The greatest paragon of NAP-morality is Robert Nozick's argument that the free society would permit people to sell themselves into slavery
     
  10. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    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 likes this.
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,225
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    It's a voluntary contract, and we all know that society has no right to interfere with voluntary contracts between individuals!
     
  12. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,439
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    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'm sure there is countless people who would be more than happy to suggest something here depending on their personal opinions :D
     
  13. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,713
    Location:
    the golf course
    Yeah, If no aggression is involved we dont need to identify violators of the NAP.

    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?

    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?

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

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,824
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    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?
     
  15. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    25,225
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    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?
     
  16. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    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.
     
  17. AlpsStranger

    AlpsStranger Jump jump on the tiger!

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,820
    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.
     
  18. Akka

    Akka Moody old mage.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    13,439
    Location:
    Facing my computer.
    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 ^^
     
  19. Borachio

    Borachio Way past lunacy

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    26,698
    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.

    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?

    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.
     
  20. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,713
    Location:
    the golf course
    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?

    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?

    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.

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

    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 would seize all the property?
     

Share This Page