Tautological Proof of NAP?

Okay, so I'm attempting to prove the NAP, and I haven't read much in reguards to its proof, so here goes (probably very flawed, so I'd like some critique):

PROOF:

I make the claim, People have a right to act. This claim is irrefutable since to attempt to disprove it assumes a right to act. If people have the right to act they have a right to controll their body in forming action, this is ownership.

Any action that violates someone elses right to act, aggression, assumes that people do not have a right to act. This in turn negates self ownership (or at least ownership equivelent to that which the aggressor violated). Therefore when you act against a certain ammount of ownership, N, you are assuming that N ammount of ownership is not ownable/viable meaning you too cannot own N ammount. However if someone who doesn't assume this, they do assume that you can own N ammount. So if you do not own N someone else can homestead N and own it.

It could be said that from the individuals perspective that only they have a right to act, but this is not logically provable since it assumes no one can disprove it. It would be like saying X is true and X means you cannot disprove X.

I dont' know if that made much sense.

Anyone have some recomended reading?

This sounds very similar to the proof advanced by Pilon and Gewirth, as well as Hoppe's argumentation ethics. I'd recommend investigating both.

-Jon

I think it made perfect sense.

banned:

I make the claim, People have a right to act. This claim is irrefutable since to attempt to disprove it assumes a right to act.

I don't know that such is the case. Couldn't it be possible that someone merely granted the privilege of acting to the denier for this purpose?

banned:

I make the claim, People have a right to act. This claim is irrefutable since to attempt to disprove it assumes a right to act.

I do not disagree with the NAP (so I'm not intending to start a flame war over this), but I think that someone refuting the claim "People have a right to act" is not necessarily committing a performative contradiction. The person could have been given permission to refute the claim, hence the act of refutation would not be a right, hence it would not be sufficient to prove the claim was axiomatic.

You could argue (and I believe) that only the person refuting the claim actually has the ability to form the thoughts and move their mouth and refute the claim, and that therefore they are acting while disputing the right to act, but they may be acting despite such a right - perhaps expecting due punishment or whatever.

banned:

Anyone have some recomended reading?

Chapter 7 of Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, "The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism is Morally Indefensible"

mike barskey:

... but I think that someone refuting the claim "People have a right to act" is not necessarily committing a performative contradiction. The person could have been given permission to refute the claim, hence the act of refutation would not be a right, hence it would not be sufficient to prove the claim was axiomatic.

Okay, so in that instance there would be a "pre-existing set of rights", correct? Much like a constitution or Social contract? Or perhaps Government Decree?

But the fact is is before these institutions (the person who "allows"/government) existed, they had to act in order to create them. They had to assert a right to act. That is essentially what people do when they act, they demonstrate a right to do so.

So either we say that it is true that X persons are the only people who have  a right to act, and they can allow other people to act (which is fallacious since it cannot be attempted to be disproven) or it must be said that all people can act and to contradict that is illogical.

Stephen Forde:

Chapter 7 of Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, "The Ethical Justification of Capitalism and Why Socialism is Morally Indefensible"

Wow, thanks a lot!

banned:

I make the claim, People have a right to act. This claim is irrefutable since to attempt to disprove it assumes a right to act. If people have the right to act they have a right to controll their body in forming action, this is ownership.

That someone has a "right" to act is not required to act for them. One can perfectly act in a world without any "rights" at all.
Actions are ontological they are a given. Rights are a mental construct of people. They don't exist as matter or action would exist. They are however a way of defining relationships and regulating certain actions.

I disagree with your definition. I think the proper definition of rights is that they are a justification for action.

Rights are what make action just, and the violation of just action unjust.

Granted, the justification is a given, since there is no way to assert the opposite without accepting a right and in that way rights are inseperable from action. But without justification you cannot assert something, so to say they are a construct or are arbitrary I think is misleading.

I'm not sure, I'll have to do some more reading.

What exactly is a right to act?  On one hand, it could mean that you would not act unjustly by acting -- you have "permission" to act.  This is neither true nor false by itself; "action" is a blanket term used to refer to a class of phenomena where individuals utilize means in the pursuit of ends.  Are individuals "permitted" to utilize means (in other words, to act)?  I suppose it depends on the means, no?  If your happiness depends on you firing a gun at my face, then no, I don't think that you have the right to act in that way.  Of course, some other actions (like covering your mouth when you sneeze) are surely permissible.  But the fact of action does not automatically confer permissibility.

On the other hand, when you say that a person has a right to act, you could mean that other individuals would be unjustified in interfering with her actions.  I think this is a more reasonable interpretation, given that you wrote, "Any action that violates someone elses right to act, aggression, assumes that people do not have a right to act."  But this definition of the right to act seems like it's neither true nor false by itself.  We'd need to know more about the action.  Again, if you were in the process of trying to fire a gun at my face, it seems reasonable to say that I might be justified in intervening.  If you were covering your mouth to suppress a sneeze, it seems odd to think that I could legitimately interfere, but even this is not logically true.

You then move on to discuss the idea that aggression violates self-ownership, but this is to beg the question.  The non-aggression principle derives from the principle of self-ownership.  If individuals own themselves, then it directly follows that others face a prima facie obligation not to interfere with their use of themselves, just as this is the case with all other ownership claims.  What you need to do is establish self-ownership.  On this, you might find this of some use: http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/shahar/shahar1.html

banned:

I make the claim, People have a right to act. This claim is irrefutable since to attempt to disprove it assumes a right to act

This makes the assumption that there are such things as 'rights', so i believe you'd have to prove that as well.

Edit: whoops, torsten and donny beat me to it. That's what I get for responding without reading the thread, i suppose.

nje5019:

This makes the assumption that there are such things as 'rights', so i believe you'd have to prove that as well.

Rights are justification for action. Justification must be present when making a positive claim in order for that claim to adhere to logic.

So I would say having a right to action means that it is true that action is logical.

Not having a right to aggress would mean that it is not true that aggression is logical.

You don't need to prove that there is action in order to make the claim "Humans act" and witness it's rebuttle as being an action itself. Action is implicit in what is being demonstrated. The same goes for rights. They are the implicit co-requisite of human action.

banned:

Rights are justification for action. Justification must be present when making a positive claim in order for that claim to adhere to logic.

So I would say having a right to action means that it is true that action is logical.

going from "something must be justified to be logical" to "anything logical is justified is therefore a right" seems like a fallacious leap in logic to me.

nje5019:

going from "something must be justified to be logical" to "anything logical is justified is therefore a right" seems like a fallacious leap in logic to me.

Would you like me to word it this way:

I make the claim, People have justification to act. This claim is irrefutable since to attempt to disprove it assumes a justification to act. If people are justified in acting they are justified in controlling their body in forming action, this is ownership.

I can say, with perfect consistency, "Anyone who wants to try to stop me from saying what I'm saying right now would be acting permissibly."  I can even say, "I am not justified in saying what I'm saying right now, and am choosing to behave immorally," without any problems with my logic.  You need to define what you mean by "justified" before you can go any further, and when you do, you should see why justification does not derive from the fact of action.

Donny with an A:

I can say, with perfect consistency, "Anyone who wants to try to stop me from saying what I'm saying right now would be acting permissibly."

Who's permission grants this?

Donny with an A:

"I am not justified in saying what I'm saying right now, and am choosing to behave immorally,"

It's not "immorality" I'm talking about. You cannot say "I am not justified in what I am saying right now, but it still poses a logical merit."

That would be a violation of the law of non contradiction. Something logical is justifiable, if your claim is unjustified, it's not logical.

Donny with an A:

You need to define what you mean by "justified" before you can go any further, and when you do, you should see why justification does not derive from the fact of action.

I didn't say justification of action (rights) derived from action. I said it was the co-requisite of action, two entirely different concepts.

Justification in the sense that I'm using it is a requirement of any positive assertion. Without justification, an assertion cannot be true since it cannot be falsified. The only way to prove a  justified positive assertion is untrue is to show that it is unjustified (unwarranted), that it's justification is not a valid one.

It is impossible to do so when saying action is justified. In order to disprove the justification that action is justified you need to accept its validity.