Imagine that you are on a mountaineering expedition. One of your fellow climbers is involved in an accident that requires immediate medical attention. However, you are almost all the way up the mountain and there is no way that you can get back down in time to get this person to the hospital. Furthermore, a rescue chopper cannot be notified because the batteries in the satelite phone have malfunctioned.
Unexpectedly, one of the other climbers announces that he has a Star Trek like transporter that can easily transport the injuried climber to the hospital. Of course everyone cheers and says thats great. But not so fast. The owner of the transporter says that he doesn't want to help the injured climber.
They question why and he says he just doesn't feel like it. It only costs about $.03 in energy for each transport, and the expected life of the transporter is 100,000 transports. So far he has used 5.
So, how many anarcho-capitalits out there would use force to take the transporter and help the injured climber? If you do, you are breaking the non-agression principle.
To up the anty, let's say that the injured climber is someone you love.
What I think this thought experiment shows is that sometimes it is ok to initiate force, and therefore the non-agression principle is false.
Thoughts?
Why would the man with the transporter tell you all of these things? To be an ***?
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Your thought experiment is based on emotion, not reason. It doesn't show anything besides the fact that you would likely use force despite your better moral judgement.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Stranger, I suppose. Does it make a difference as to why? I would beat the guy up and take his transporter and use if for teh injured person. Of course, I would give him his transporter back, but never the less, I would initiate force against this person.
krazy kaju, what would you do? If you would not initiate force, why is someone that would wrong?
I would use trickery, then bribery, then mindfuck, then emotional blackmail, and then 'reasonable' force.
An angel I am.
Trianglechoke7: Stranger, I suppose. Does it make a difference as to why? I would beat the guy up and take his transporter and use if for teh injured person. Of course, I would give him his transporter back, but never the less, I would initiate force against this person.
Do you really think it is a good idea to attack someone with access to supernatural technology? It is probable that he also possesses similarly advanced weapons and protection.
Wow! You have not only created a 'crisis' scenario, where normal rules don't apply, you've also added a deus ex machina in the form of the transporter.
Statism Defeated?
If it is sometimes okay to initiate force, when is it NOT okay to initiate force? Are you going to judge on a case-by-case basis? I would much rather have a principle that works 99 times out of a 100 than have to stop and rethink the issue every time it comes up. And if you DO get an extreme case such as the one you've come up with here, then maybe that's the time to stop and think about it, and not the 99 other times when it's pretty obvious and trivial.
Stranger, for the sake of the example, let's just say he doesn't have advanced weapon technology. All I need to do is show an logical possible scenario where the non-agression principle does not apply in order to show the principle is false.
macsnafu, it may very well be the case that you shouldn't initiate force 99 times out of 100, but that one time shows the principle to be false. If it is false, then we need to get thinking on a principle that allows us to discern the times we should initiate force and the times we should not. This may or may not allow for a state. Perhaps it will only allow for isolated individual intiations of force and not government, but perhaps it will only for minarchism, or perhaps we will fall into justification of socialism.
The non aggression principle is just that, a principle. In emergency situations, society breaks down and you may act in violation of your principles.
What do you mean by "that one time shows the principle to be false"? How can a principle be shown false? What does that mean?
You have created a variation on the old "lifeboat scenario". Let us know when you are in such a scenario. The chances of being in such a situation are so remote as to not warrant much attention frankly. What would I do? I may indeed pull a Jean Valjean. Is this a violation of the NAP? Perhaps in a strict sense, but if that person has such little regard for human life he is no better than a politician in my book. I would feel no guilt about commandeering his machine temporarily. I think any reasonable person would understand. Again, such scenarios are very, very, very rare. Also, I would not willingly hang around such an a_+hole. Such a question of morality in a rare emergency scenario has next-to-no impact in the question of economics.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Trianglechoke7:Stranger, for the sake of the example, let's just say he doesn't have advanced weapon technology. All I need to do is show an logical possible scenario where the non-agression principle does not apply in order to show the principle is false.
You are doing neoclassical economics, assuming impossible conditions in order to arrive at irrelevant conclusions.
In reality, you are going to attack a man with god-like technology without truly knowing that he has the ability to achieve the end you seek. If he retaliates and kills you, no court will find him guilty, as no one will know that you were trying to help your friend.
macsnafu:If it is sometimes okay to initiate force, when is it NOT okay to initiate force? Are you going to judge on a case-by-case basis? I would much rather have a principle that works 99 times out of a 100 than have to stop and rethink the issue every time it comes up.
I think a case-by-case basis is exactly how it should be considered, and to wish to do otherwise is mere intellectual laziness. Was the use of force brave, compassionate, necessary? What it brutal, random, cruel? Any action, including the use of force, can be characterized, and we should characterize it individually. Anything else is trying to force too much order, too much collectivism, onto individuals. Only individuals can truly make the individual judgements of actions. Social structures, on the other hand, face a far higher ratio of issues to decision makers (these latter being collectives and therefore fewer), and so the larger and more complex the structure, the more it must work by rule and principle.
Little messy, this. I'll refine it.
krazy kaju: Your thought experiment is based on emotion, not reason. It doesn't show anything besides the fact that you would likely use force despite your better moral judgement.
Yes, but I think it is an emotional response that most would have.
Would I personally use force to make the man use the transporter? Yes. I would also accept the repercusions if he wanted to press charges against me.
I think in these situations, it is a matter of retribution afterwards that solves the problem.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
This might be of some help: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/04/rights-and-entitlements.html
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Oh, and a better version of the same basic thought experiment:
You are standing at the edge of a lake, and you spot a child drowning in the center. Unfortunately, the child is too far out to to reach by swimming without putting yourself in mortal danger of drowning. There is another individual standing by the side of the lake, and this individual has a motor boat which he could easily use to save the child. But rather than saving the child, this individual turns to you and says, "Hey, I've never seen a child drown before; this is great!" In horror, you reply, "You're really going to just let that kid die out there for your sick amusement?" "Yea, why not? It's not my problem," the boat-owner replies, "and besides, what's it to you?"
TBH, there are some far more interesting criticisms of the NAP than this. The entire premise is that it is somehow a moral imperative to rescue the injured climber, which is no imperative at all, she could simply die. (Assuming she is female, and that the individual who is her love is male, which is your described example). Libertarian ethics is not broken, because it isn't forced to contradict itself, unless you can find a reason why saving the injured climber is an absolute moral necessity. Also, technically I could knock the guy out, use the teleporter for all given climbers, and simply pay for the damages according to the victims demands. (Correct this statement if it is incorrect)
Please, base your criticisms of of CONTRADICTIONS within the NAP, not emotive pleas.
Simply put, you have to create a possible senario in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to act in accordance with the NAP, or engage in INACTION for that matter.
I retrogressed into being a Republican recently after watching the Superman movie.
If and when General Zod attacks planet Earth, I think we'd have to use nuclear weapons against him and probably most of the people who have kneeled before him.
Seriously, though, the transporter is somehow extremely scarce, extremely cheap, and extremely in demand at the same time -- making little economic sense. If all people don't have them at those prices, then they are probably either Amish or jehovahs witnesses that won't accept medical treatment anyway.
Add to this the unlikelihood that he would
1) Bring something along he had no intention of using.
2) Purposefully then throw himself in front of a possible violent situation and/or social ostracism.
3) Allow any harm to come to himself thereof if he could transport himself immediately to safety.
Where is this supposed defeat? I see none.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Mlee, why would it be necessary to demonstrate an internal inconsistency in order to reject the non-aggression principle? Wouldn't the rejection of one of the premises be sufficient?
Jon, what the original poster was trying to show was that we have good reason to question the truth of the non-aggression principle, so ostensibly his argument would need to be that the legitimacy or desirability of anarcho-capitalism is contingent on the truth of the non-aggression principle, and that the principle is false.
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