The issue of how or whether the NAP is justified has been hotly debated here in the past few weeks, but there seems to be a deeper question that perhaps many of us can agree on.
Suppose we eliminate all monopolies on force. We are in anarchy.
Now, is the NAP something to be decreed for all, or is it something we simply believe will most likely be chosen by consumers on the market? (chosen for whatever reason - because it is objectively right, or because we subjectively value it, because it has good consequences, because of Hoppe's AE, because it's wired into our brains, etc. - let's not debate the NAP's justifications here, only it's role)
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
How do consumers initiate aggression in the free market?
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
No one?
I would say that the NAP can't be "decreed" by anyone because there isn't a monopoly on decrees anymore. If consumers desire a non-aggression approach to police and military, that's what businesses will aim for.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
I could answer this with intelligent point, but I have no idea what NAP is.
www.donroche.com
The NAP means: non-aggression principle
I think it provides the basis for non-intrusive law. I know I have to define the term. I'll do my best before Thursday.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
AJ:is the NAP something to be decreed for all, or is it something we simply believe will most likely be chosen by consumers on the market?
You seem to have already assumed the answer to your own question. A "market" is usually defined (at least in libertarian circles) as "coercion-free economic interaction" (if you're using a different definition, clarify what you mean). Therefore it is by definition impossible for people to choose non-NAP on the market, because as soon as there is aggression then the choice is no longer a market choice.So it's tautologically true to say that "Consumers will always choose the NAP on the market," but this statement doesn't really tell us anything new, other than that it's incoherent to say that the free market will determine whether or not the NAP is followed.
I added "on the market" to clarify what I meant to ask, but you're right that it does have those connotations. However, my question does not require it. To rephrase:
Is the NAP something to be decreed for all, or is it something we simply believe will most likely be chosen by the preponderance of the people in the absence of a monopoly on force?
You seem to have already assumed the answer to your own question. A "market" is usually defined (at least in libertarian circles) as "coercion-free economic interaction"
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Score one for the "decreed for all" side.
Juan:I wonder if you just don't get it - which would get you classed as, say, retarded - or else you are actually trolling.
Actually, you are the one trolling (big surprise there). He asked a question, you posted a non-sequitur, he assumed your position. It was probably that, or ignore you.
You can always go back and answer his direct question without the non-sequiturs.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Juan:Their definition of anarchy is not a society in which individual rights are respected and aggression is banned.
Their definition of anarchy is not a society in which individual rights are respected and aggression is banned.
Who would "ban" it?
Juan:Their version of anarchy is a system with no monopolistic government, but it clearly allows 'competing' governments - i.e. war.
Their version of anarchy is a system with no monopolistic government, but it clearly allows 'competing' governments - i.e. war.
Who would "disallow" them?
These two questions are related. I absolutely respect individual freedom (and the more I read about anarcho-capitalism, the more I appreciate it), but part of believing that means that there are always going to be people with a different code of morality than you, and some of those people will try very unlibertarian things. This possibility can never be 100% erased... we can only become part of a society in which aggression is undesirable and where any attempt to impose a state would be resisted, both by individuals and the PDAs they contract with.
By saying, "Score one for the 'decreed for all' side," I meant, "It seems now we have one person saying the NAP is in fact to be decreed for all." I myself take the opposite position (score one for the other side).
Actually, I think what Juan was pointing out is that the moral nihilists end up relativizing anarchy to the point of essentially defining it as being compatible with any concievable form of government, at which point the entire distinction between anarchy and statism breaks down. What one is left with is a pluralistic series of territorial states, each with their own property norms and laws about the use of force. Which is exactly what we have now, only probably over larger geographical areas. In effect, the hyper-subjective "panarchists" endorse a decentralized version of statism.
Brainpolice:Actually, I think what Juan was pointing out is that the moral nihilists end up relativizing anarchy to the point of essentially defining it as being compatible with any concievable form of government, at which point the entire distinction between anarchy and statism breaks down. What one is left with is a pluralistic series of territorial states, each with their own property norms and laws about the use of force. Which is exactly what we have now, only probably over larger geographical areas.
Juan calls anyone who disagrees with him a moral nihilist. They are by no means uniform or homogenous in their opinions. It's just an attack technique in debate, and on a forum this clever, it gets mostly ignored as the rhetorical fluff that it is.
Brainpolice:In effect, the hyper-subjective "panarchists" endorse a decentralized version of statism.
This is a strawman. For some of us, statism = aggression, not voluntary hierarchy.
Brainpolice: ...defining it as being compatible with any concievable form of government, at which point the entire distinction between (universal)anarchy and (universal)statism breaks down. What one is left with is a pluralistic series of nonterritorial states, each with their own property norms and laws about the use of force. Which is [not] what we have now,... In effect, the panarchists endorse a decentralized version of voluntary government, or statism [for those who want it] or [for those who are unable for the time being to extricate themselves from it] (which is what we have now)....
...defining it as being compatible with any concievable form of government, at which point the entire distinction between (universal)anarchy and (universal)statism breaks down. What one is left with is a pluralistic series of nonterritorial states, each with their own property norms and laws about the use of force. Which is [not] what we have now,... In effect, the panarchists endorse a decentralized version of voluntary government, or statism [for those who want it] or [for those who are unable for the time being to extricate themselves from it] (which is what we have now)....
I made a few alterations....
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
AJ: The issue of how or whether the NAP is justified has been hotly debated here in the past few weeks, but there seems to be a deeper question that perhaps many of us can agree on. Suppose we eliminate all monopolies on force. We are in anarchy. Now, is the NAP something to be decreed for all, or is it something we simply believe will most likely be chosen by consumers on the market? (chosen for whatever reason - because it is objectively right, or because we subjectively value it, because it has good consequences, because of Hoppe's AE, because it's wired into our brains, etc. - let's not debate the NAP's justifications here, only it's role)
Look, something I have learned from this site is this.....you are living in anarchy right now...this is what it looks like. There are no monopolies on force....that exists only in your head. When you say there is a monopoly on force what you are really saying is that your scared, which is ok but it's not some fictional monopoly. Your as free as you make yourself right now. The NAP is how humans basic instinct is but it's weak and easily distracted.
What you should expect in "anarchy: is what you see now, some areas better than others with less criminals and the occasional overthrow of criminal groups to be replaced by either better or worse criminal groups. That's it your free, I have given you the secret.
The less criminals there are the better off you will be, but dont believe for one second a society will exist without criminals, that "anarchy" is an impossibility.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap