kingmonkey:The NAP IS correct ALL the time. Your choice to violate it doesn't make it incorrect in extreme situations. You cannot take my property = you violating my property if you steal my transporter. Correct, all the time, no matter what the reason. A person dies because I would not hand over my transporter = not my problem. I wasn't the cause of his death. That is the correct answer ALL THE TIME. No matter what the reason is you CANNOT violate another persons property and still be right. I don't have to hand over my transporter to save that man and afterwards you don't have to talk to me anymore and you can tell everyone that I allowed that guy to die up on that mountain but his illness doesn't give you the right to steal my stuff.
Okay, then, don't steal it. If it is the wrong thing to do, why would you do it? What is your motivation? Why not stand by your principles?
This is a very interesting post, cannot believe I missed it for so long.
Let me tell a thing about propaganda, taken from my political experience. Ideas, as sound and noble as they are, do not sell. To have political success you need to scare people out of their wits: if you do not vore for us the immigrants, the fascists, the communists will get you. Play on the most basal fears and the more you exagerate, the better. You also need to make ridicolous promises you know you cannot possibly keep but with huge shocking value: I'll create one million new works, I'll hire ten thousand new policemen for your security, I'll pass the death penalty for speeding. You also need to influence large special interest groups: if I win I'll raise benefits for retired persons, I'll give cash incentives to dairy farmers, I'll hire more teachers. And so on. Is this something you really want to end up doing? Because that's how elections are won.
The best course of action is to take upon yourself the heavy task of "converting" people. Like I said before the best course of action is to procede one step at the time and do not rush things in: this will only ingenerate confusion and even resentment. Try telling somebody who has lived in a Socialdemocracy all his life, never heard the name "Hoppe", that democracy is fatally flawed and see how far you'll get. Try talking about Minarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism and you'll be considered a nut. Try telling that the only difference between Left and Right (politically speaking, of course) nowadays is party flag and you'll be dumped together with storefront preachers and UFO loonies. It's a long, strenous task because I think you all know the damages compliant medias, compulsory schooling and propaganda have done over the last century. You'll probably feel very like a missionary from a rising religion in foreign land because that's exactly what you'll be: a missionary from Liberty in the land of Socialism and Cohercion.
I have started this approach years ago and I must confess that while you'll meet with much disappointment at first and perhaps even insults (my father used to accuse me of being a communist... of all things! ) but I can assure you that results will come in. Now I think this is something we all can do.
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
JCFolsom: kingmonkey:The NAP IS correct ALL the time. Your choice to violate it doesn't make it incorrect in extreme situations. You cannot take my property = you violating my property if you steal my transporter. Correct, all the time, no matter what the reason. A person dies because I would not hand over my transporter = not my problem. I wasn't the cause of his death. That is the correct answer ALL THE TIME. No matter what the reason is you CANNOT violate another persons property and still be right. I don't have to hand over my transporter to save that man and afterwards you don't have to talk to me anymore and you can tell everyone that I allowed that guy to die up on that mountain but his illness doesn't give you the right to steal my stuff. Okay, then, don't steal it. If it is the wrong thing to do, why would you do it? What is your motivation? Why not stand by your principles?
Who said they were my principles? I never said I adhere to the NAP I'm just arguing the facts of the matter at hand. You assume that I am placing myself on some moral high ground because I'm arguing for the absolute nature of the NAP. I never said I was governed by it. That is your assumption. In fact, I have chosen to violate the NAP many times knowing the consequenses. Don't assume something that has never been said.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
gigaplex: The point remains that NAP is not an absolute moral or ethical system as you so expertly pointed out.
The point remains that NAP is not an absolute moral or ethical system as you so expertly pointed out.
I never said that NAP is a moral or ethical system at all. It is neither an absolute nor a weak moral system it is not in the realm of moral. If that means that some ancaps loose their foundation because they base their philosophy on morals and ethics, so be it. Yet I do not think that is the case for the majority of ancaps.
gigaplex: You have definately identified the fallacy of the anarchists whose sole argument for ancap is morals :)
You have definately identified the fallacy of the anarchists whose sole argument for ancap is morals :)
If you where right with the statement that ancap has as its sole argument morals, than you got a point. But that is a strawman. Ancap and libertarian philosophy is based on the fact that man acts, and owns himself, under any circumstances. It is based on the idea that rights are only between individuals not groups. Here is the important difference. The non aggression principle is a derivation, and a logical one, from the fact that an individual owns his self and everything he has rightfully, that is without violating the property rights of a third party, aquired. Non aggression in this sense is just the practical consequence of the basic right of self ownership.
Moral and ethics is a social topic used to guide ones decissions. It is up one level at least from the idea of self ownership and property rights. Good and bad are no categories regarding property rights. They are evaluations that you base your decisions on, depending on what moral and ethical believes you hold.
But, whatever beliefs you hold, once you aggress against property rights, you violate the very basic human right, the right to own himself. Yet, that does not mean that you get stripped of your basic rights once you do so. It only means, that you are now inclined to make up for the damage you inflicted.
For example, if you where a nice guy and saw a little child drowning in the water and there was a rope behind a glas window and you break the glass window to get the rope to save the child, would that mean the owner of the glas window and the rope have no right to get the damage repaired? Certainly not.
Does this mean the only outcome would be for you to make it up to him? Certainly not. He could, based on his beliefs, morals, ethics, the fact that he had a great day or whatever reason just decide to forget about it. Or if he claims his right, the child or its parents could compensate him. Or, if nothing else happens, you would have to make the compensation as you have been the violater.
The fallacy in arguing against the NAP seems to me the idea that violating rights means punishment has to follow. This is not the case. Punishment is a collective absurdity from my point of view. Violating a right means that the violater is in charge to compensate, that is to reinstate the situation as it was before the violation took place. The oldest expression of this idea is an eye for an eye, which was meant as to be compensation for the damage done. Punishment is a useless concept and only caters to venegance. If I have to fear that, in addition to compansation, i would be punished as well, wouldn't this increase my willing to protect me from such a thing by, say making sure no witness survives? Mind the "increase" in the last sentence, no absolute here, just a tendency. I think it would.
And, even more important, wouldn't it be the initiation of an aggression against me now? Remember you do not loose your rights by violating the rights of others. You gain a responsibility to make up for the violation. This is, to make it up to the person you damaged, not any other entity. Any third party, that is not a contracted agent of the one you violated, is aggressing against you in case he wants to force you to anything or even wants to punish you for a crime (a violation of a property right of a single Individual) and becomes a criminal himself who has to compensate you for his violation of your rights in turn.
No moral and ethics inflicted and it works like a charm, provides more safety and security than any other scheme I am aware of. And it needs no group laws to work.
Have a great time
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
kingmonkey:Who said they were my principles? I never said I adhere to the NAP I'm just arguing the facts of the matter at hand. You assume that I am placing myself on some moral high ground because I'm arguing for the absolute nature of the NAP. I never said I was governed by it. That is your assumption. In fact, I have chosen to violate the NAP many times knowing the consequenses. Don't assume something that has never been said.
What a crazy assumption of mine, that I would actually think someone arguing so strongly for the NAP would think it was the correct guide for human action. So, are you saying then that you don't think the NAP is the correct principle for human action, but are just arguing because you want to make sure your absolute definition of it is dominant? Am I reading that right?
JCFolsom: What a crazy assumption of mine, that I would actually think someone arguing so strongly for the NAP would think it was the correct guide for human action. So, are you saying then that you don't think the NAP is the correct principle for human action, but are just arguing because you want to make sure your absolute definition of it is dominant? Am I reading that right?
Well, those are your words to describe your assumption. The NAP is no principle for human action at all. The actions of humans are guided by the beliefs they hold, which are in the moral and ethical realm. The NAP is a logical consequence of the right to selfownership and just means, as i said elsewhere, that if one individual does damage to the property of another individual, it is the right of the violated to be compensated, or to defend himself against such an aggression.
That's all.
On top of this you can start to develop ethics and moral systems as much as it pleases you. And than you can go ahead and use those systems to guide your actions.
Does that make sense?
Have a great day
JCFolsom:What a crazy assumption of mine, that I would actually think someone arguing so strongly for the NAP would think it was the correct guide for human action. So, are you saying then that you don't think the NAP is the correct principle for human action, but are just arguing because you want to make sure your absolute definition of it is dominant? Am I reading that right?
I can also argue strongly for the right of a woman to have an abortion but I don't support it and hate the very idea of anyone who does it and personally think they are a murderer. But you wont see me saying women don't have that right, because they do. I do think the NAP is the correct principle for human action and I do think it is absolute. I don't always adhere to it. Not sure why that is a problem for you. I guess I should be sinless and be a Jesus figure or something because, my God, we can't believe in something and still do things contrary to it can we!?! Why that would make us...GASP....HUMAN!
I think nhaag pretty much sums up how I feel about it.
Trianglechoke7: 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.
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.
So let me get this straight: Some guy is climbing to the top of a deserted mountain (deserted except for him and the climbing group), with no communication, and with the others in his group worried about a fellow climber... and he decides he to be a total *** to them? Is he ****ing stupid?
banned: So let me get this straight: Some guy is climbing to the top of a deserted mountain (deserted except for him and the climbing group), with no communication, and with the others in his group worried about a fellow climber... and he decides he to be a total *** to them? Is he ****ing stupid?
You're not supposed to worry about how they got into the situation in the first place, no matter how unlikely it is.
After all, it COULD happen!
kingmonkey: I think nhaag pretty much sums up how I feel about it.
Whoah, whoah, whoah, hold the boat here. Nhaag was just saying that NAP is NOT a moral system. This was the entire thing I was arguing with you about. If NAP is not a moral system, then it is certainly not an absolute moral system. It may be an absolute something else. I think Nhaag said an absolute right or something like that. But if it is not a moral system then if you evaluate the actions NAP leads to on a moral basis, you obviously can't say that it will always lead to the most moral decision based on the evaluation by a moral system.
Monkey, when we talk about whether or not some NAP action is moral or not, what moral system are you using to evaluate the action? The only way I can see NAP being absolute in your eyes would be if you were using NAP as the moral system to evaluate NAP. I was instead using an actual moral system to evaluate it and so it was certainly not absolute to me (in the moral sense). Can we all agree that what determines whether NAP is absolute on a moral basis is dependant on what moral system you use to evaluate it?
I am arguing from property rights and ownership. My "moral system", as far as this goes, is who is the owner, whose property is it, and what is happening. That is what I've been consistently saying from the beginning. I'm not using Christian beliefs that I should have to save someone who is dying or some other nonsense like that. I'm not using the belief that you are a "bad" person if you don't help someone who is dying. My "moral system", as far has this is concerned, is WHOSE property is it and WHAT are you trying to do with it. You NEVER under any circumstances have the right to violate, trespass, aggress, initiate force, etc., etc. against ANY person or their property unless it is for self-defense against and directed against the person who is trying to harm you or has harmed you. I don't care if by doing so you can save 10 million lives. That does not and will not ever give you the right to steal from another person. The NAP isn't so much a moral system but a principle, but then again morals are nothing more than personal principles, now aren't they? Label it however you want it doesn't change the fact that you are never entitled to stealing or harming someone else just because you think you can.
kingmonkey:You NEVER under any circumstances have the right to violate, trespass, aggress, initiate force, etc., etc. against ANY person or their property unless it is for self-defense against and directed against the person who is trying to harm you or has harmed you. I don't care if by doing so you can save 10 million lives.
Then WHY would YOU do it?
JCFolsom:Then WHY would YOU do it?
Because I WANT to. I might not have the right to do it but wouldn't stop me from doing. I seriously don't understand why you can't grasp what I'm saying here. I NEVER have the right to initiate force against someone but in a life boat situation I probably WOULD do it KNOWING I could be prosecuted for it. It's not that difficult to understand.
What you are trying to do is make it look like I never err in my life, like I'm trying to say I'm sinless, like I wouldn't ever violate the NAP. I never said that. I NEVER have the right to do so but since I do have free will and I personally wouldn't want to see someone die I might just go ahead and violate it. That is my argument. The NAP is absolute. You never have the right to violate it. But you CAN violate it because you have free will. Christ why is this so hard for you to understand!?! Just because I would violate it does not mean it is not absolute. That's not a difficult concept to understand.
If you know that you will be prosecuted but that knowledge still does not deter you, perhaps your punishment should be upped until you are deterred.
But look, you're not even faced with the decision just now! You're basically planning to do it if you should ever have the occasion to, even though you know it's wrong! You have made the decision, with malice aforethought, to do what you define as evil.
So, you sir, are a LIAR. You say you believe something when you know that you do not act as if you believe it. You are a knowing and happy hypocrite. Not only would you violate the code you fraudulently claim, you don't even express a desire to be a "better" person who would actually try to do what you "know" is right.
Your morals are shown by your actions. You don't believe in the NAP any more than I do, you just like being in the club.
Screw all this semantic bullshit. What I wanna know is, am I allowed to go outside and kick the living *** out of the guy whose van is blocking my driveway if he refuses to move it?
"Every civilization depends on the quality of individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness-they cannot work and their civilization collapses." -Frank Herbert, from Children of Dune
kingmonkey: I am arguing from property rights and ownership. My "moral system", as far as this goes, is who is the owner, whose property is it, and what is happening. That is what I've been consistently saying from the beginning. I'm not using Christian beliefs that I should have to save someone who is dying or some other nonsense like that. I'm not using the belief that you are a "bad" person if you don't help someone who is dying. My "moral system", as far has this is concerned, is WHOSE property is it and WHAT are you trying to do with it. You NEVER under any circumstances have the right to violate, trespass, aggress, initiate force, etc., etc. against ANY person or their property unless it is for self-defense against and directed against the person who is trying to harm you or has harmed you. I don't care if by doing so you can save 10 million lives. That does not and will not ever give you the right to steal from another person. The NAP isn't so much a moral system but a principle, but then again morals are nothing more than personal principles, now aren't they? Label it however you want it doesn't change the fact that you are never entitled to stealing or harming someone else just because you think you can.
A moral system does not have to be religious. My "survival" moral system that I posted earlier does not have anything to do with gods, aliens or anything like that.The moral system you just described IS NAP and it has to be in order for NAP to be absolute on a moral level since the moral system would need to lead you to completely identical answers. Yet at the same time, you admit that NAP is not so much a moral system. You are saying it is not a moral system and you are using it as a moral system. You can't have it both ways. Either you are evaluating NAP by using NAP as a moral system and this is how you get to "absolute universal moral principle" or you are using an actual moral system (not NAP) to evaluate NAP and then it would turn out to NOT be an absolute universal moral principle.So what's it going to be? Are you going to change your mind now and claim it is a moral system or admit that it is not absolute on a moral level?
It amazes me that this discussion proceeds and yet no attention has been focussed on the distinction between the good and the right.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus:It amazes me that this discussion proceeds and yet no attention has been focussed on the distinction between the good and the right.
Which is... what?
It's one of the oldest distinctions made in ethical theory. The good pertains to the good life, i.e. the moral life, and is more concerned with one's character. The right concerns how one ought to treat others, basically. A major problem with modern ethical theory - particularly liberal, and this includes libertarian - is that it eschews the 'good' to the extent that the 'right' dominates, stripping morality of any substantive content and rendering it utterly minimalist. It's relevant in comprehending to what extent, if any, the NAP is absolute, and in what contexts it is so.
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