The Role of the NAP

LS:

Juan calls anyone who disagrees with him a moral nihilist.

I call anybody who is not a moral realist, a moral nihilist. And It's a correct classification.

People who are not moral realists either believe :

1) that the whole idea of 'good' and 'evil' is a fantasy which 'can't be observed in nature' - also known as moral nihilism OR

2) that morality is a subjective matter - which means I might believe that butchering you when I feel like it is morally good - while you might disagree - but it ultimately doesn't matter since morality is just one more 'subjective value' which can't be meaningfully compared to other subjective values. In practice no different than moral nihilism.

So, basically, one can stick to common sense and believe in good and evil, or one can be a 'philosopher' who's beyond good and evil...

Maxliberty:

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.

Nonsense. Organized crime was a dangerous business before the asendancy of the Hobbesian myth and the legitimization of organized thuggery today called "the State." The whole problem with modern government is the moral problem - that people accept as legitimate actions they would otherwise decry as a great crime but for their belief in the "moral legitimacy" of the aggressor (the State). So, we do not live in a society that believes in the natural order and, as a consequence, the natural order is greatly distorted. This is just like the distorting effects of the state on the market - when the participants in the market (all of us) don't believe in economic freedom, we suffer the consequences of the gross distortions that are imposed upon the market through central planning. You are saying there is not actually a monopoly on law and force but this is as absurd as saying there is no such thing as central planning because black markets always arise to arbitrage the controlled versus the natural market price.

Clayton -

Here's a related, but important point. Libertarianism is defined by the NAP.

On the other hand when some people talk about anarchy they say anarchy means "no monopoly on force". Now, that's not a standard definition of anarchy IMO, but if we are to use that definition anyway, it's quite clear that anarchy and libertarianism are different things.

In a free/libertarian society, PDAs are bound to play by the NAP. Anything else is just competing governments - no different than what we have now.

The idea that panarchy is going to exist in a setting where people in different 'communities' and 'cultures' agree to follow the NAP is unfounded. Panarchy is a very weak theory, I'd say it's truly utopian, as opposed to libertarianism, which is both 'good' and practical.

Juan:

On the other hand when some people talk about anarchy they say anarchy means "no monopoly on force". Now, that's not a standard definition of anarchy IMO, but if we are to use that definition anyway, it's quite clear that anarchy and libertarianism are different things.

Anarchy simply means no rulers. Not no force.

I don't think that what you said addresses what I said.

Juan:

I don't think that what you said addresses what I said.

You said your standard definition is that which the populace improperly conceive. Since you are here and not the whole populace, I think it well to point out the proper definition to you. Spread the message

 

AJ:

For me, your example is difficult because of the amount of speculation needed to address it.

If the monopoly on force were temporarily suspended somehow, then some libertarians could try to form an association (in the chaos, grabs for power, and violence that may be occurring) and implement their particular version of libertarianism.   But since libertarians are a relatively small percentage of the population, then those wanting to implement some version of the NAP would likely only be able to do so as a negative restriction on those outside their association.   They would (speculatively) not be able to extend enforcement of this social norm to apply between non-members.

Any universal decree would probably have about the same effect such a decree would have now: people whose level of social and political development is different would ignore it in deference to the social-political forms they prefer or are accustomed to. 

Maybe an educational question would be: given a temporary suspension of the monopoly of force, would libertarians prefer to try to form an association and implement the NAP amongst themselves as a negative restriction against non-members, or, would they prefer to try to implement NAP universally?

 

ClaytonB:

Nonsense. Organized crime was a dangerous business before the asendancy of the Hobbesian myth and the legitimization of organized thuggery today called "the State." The whole problem with modern government is the moral problem - that people accept as legitimate actions they would otherwise decry as a great crime but for their belief in the "moral legitimacy" of the aggressor (the State). So, we do not live in a society that believes in the natural order and, as a consequence, the natural order is greatly distorted. This is just like the distorting effects of the state on the market - when the participants in the market (all of us) don't believe in economic freedom, we suffer the consequences of the gross distortions that are imposed upon the market through central planning. You are saying there is not actually a monopoly on law and force but this is as absurd as saying there is no such thing as central planning because black markets always arise to arbitrage the controlled versus the natural market price.

Clayton -

The criminals never view themselves as acting in the wrong. The fact that some or many people at least in some places view the state as good is no different than organized crime viewing themselves as a family.

The state is just a criminal organization, in some places it is very powerful and in others it is very weak. This is no different than gangs within a city.

This is what anarchy looks like. Learn to thrive in it.

Maxliberty:

...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.

 

Maxliberty:

I think you are making or indicating some philosophical insights that might get lost or overlooked in the context of a political debate going on in a forum.

Maxliberty:

There are no monopolies on force....that exists only in your head.

From Wikipedia, a monopoly "exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." In that sense, the monopoly is quite real.

However, "you are living in anarchy right now" is close to stating an important point: monopoly on force, and hence anarchy, is a matter of degree. At what cutoff point can we say whether an entity can "determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to [a product or service]"? Force is itself able to determine the terms on which other people have access to certain things, so as long as there is force, there is monopoly in that sense.Of course, by virtually any interpretation of "significantly," modern states do indeed have a monopoly on force. Monopoly does not imply absolute monopoly.

Anarchism, then, seems to imply an aversion to any one institution gaining too much power over a given territory, so as to ensure that there is no territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction (TMUJ) bigger than, say at the very minimum, a household.

Adam Knott:

Maybe an educational question would be: given a temporary suspension of the monopoly of force, would libertarians prefer to try to form an association and implement the NAP amongst themselves as a negative restriction against non-members, or, would they prefer to try to implement NAP universally?

That rephrase will do nicely.

AJ:

Maxliberty:

There are no monopolies on force....that exists only in your head.

From Wikipedia, a monopoly "exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it." In that sense, the monopoly is quite real.

However, "you are living in anarchy right now" is close to stating an important point: monopoly on force, and hence anarchy, is a matter of degree. At what cutoff point can we say whether an entity can "determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to [a product or service]"? Force is itself able to determine the terms on which other people have access to certain things, so as long as there is force, there is monopoly in that sense.Of course, by virtually any interpretation of "significantly," modern states do indeed have a monopoly on force. Monopoly does not imply absolute monopoly.

Anarchism, then, seems to imply an aversion to any one institution gaining too much power over a given territory, so as to ensure that there is no territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction (TMUJ) bigger than, say at the very minimum, a household.

That depends a great deal on where you live. Your view is too centered on where you live at the moment. The world is a big place. There are revolutions all over the world....do you think those people believe there is a monopoly of force where they live? How about the people where you live that rob and murder....do you think they believe there is a monopoly of force. There is no monopoly of force only some people willing to use force and others who are not.

Saan:

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.

Not gonna happen. I tore my own assertions to pieces.  Thanks to all for not having me embarrass myself too badly.