Political Theory

Re: Collective NAP

Anenome — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:46:40 GMT

Wheylous:

Yeah, but I think you'd need a fleet of libertarian US historians to resolve that one :P

Or one Rothbard :P

Re: Collective NAP

Wheylous — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:34:31 GMT

Yeah, but I think you'd need a fleet of libertarian US historians to resolve that one :P

Re: Collective NAP

Malachi — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:27:46 GMT

Andris Birkmanis:
Ok, let's return to the real-life scenario - were the allied soldiers justified in killing the German youths (who were probably wearing German uniform, though I am not sure if Volkssturm actually did during the battle for Berlin)?

I forgive them. Although the opinion of a veteran of OIF and OEF may not be worth much to some people, at least in this respect.

Re: Collective NAP

Anenome — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:22:33 GMT

Yeah, it's a complex issue but not unsolvable. I'll bet it would be a good topic for a book, applying the NAP to WWII and seeing what results. Would be many things to consider there.

Re: Collective NAP

Wheylous — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:11:38 GMT

I simply don't know. I'm also not a judicial scholar in a libertarian legal system :P

It would take quite some time to work this one out, I think.

Re: Collective NAP

Andris Birkmanis — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 21:02:07 GMT

Ok, let's return to the real-life scenario - were the allied soldiers justified in killing the German youths (who were probably wearing German uniform, though I am not sure if Volkssturm actually did during the battle for Berlin)?

Re: Collective NAP

Anenome — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 20:28:36 GMT

"What I can say without posting the article here is that appearing in an enemy army constitutes a reasonable cause to use deadly force (unfortunately)."

I agree. Aggression is about force or the reasonable threat of force.

Wearing the enemy uniform and holding a weapon is reasonable threat of force if you're in the country they declared war against, IMO.

Re: Collective NAP

Eugene — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:19:33 GMT

You have to agree to the standard, otherwise there is no way to know what happens in the interaction. If pointing a piece of gun at someone is considered generally a threat, and for you it means something else, like a show of sympathy, you still can't point the gun at someone. You must concur to the standard or face the consequences of ignoring it.

Re: Collective NAP

Malachi — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:35:38 GMT

hashem:
You guys are talking about when you feel violence is justified. That has nothing to do with the NAP, which says, "No man may aggress against the person or property of another." By definition, someone who fails to aggress is not in violation of the NAP.

It's unfortunate that taking something as straightforward as this and twisting it seems to be popular around here.

Do you recognize such a thing as defensive violence?

Re: Collective NAP

Malachi — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:34:43 GMT

Then you obviously can't attack him because he conveys another kind of message. If it will become common to use white flags in order to trap people, then you'll have the legitimacy to kill even those who hold white flags. People use language, verbal or nor, to interact. If you close a deal and the other person thinks that when you say "Yes" it actually means "No", then its his fault, not yours. There has to be some standard way to convey messages, verbally or not.

if people are in conflict then they may not actually agree to the standard.

Re: Collective NAP

hashem — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:17:13 GMT

You guys are talking about when you feel violence is justified. That has nothing to do with the NAP, which says, "No man may aggress against the person or property of another." By definition, someone who fails to aggress is not in violation of the NAP.

It's unfortunate that taking something as straightforward as this and twisting it seems to be popular around here.

Re: Collective NAP

Eugene — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:35:27 GMT

Then you obviously can't attack him because he conveys another kind of message. If it will become common to use white flags in order to trap people, then you'll have the legitimacy to kill even those who hold white flags. People use language, verbal or nor, to interact. If you close a deal and the other person thinks that when you say "Yes" it actually means "No", then its his fault, not yours. There has to be some standard way to convey messages, verbally or not.

Re: Collective NAP

Malachi — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:03:52 GMT

What if he has a white flag?

Re: Collective NAP

Eugene — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 15:56:13 GMT

During a war, a person wearing a uniform of the enemy army, in fact threatens you with violence. He can either say "I will kill you", show you a gesture that signifies the intent to kill you, or wear a uniform. In all these cases a clear message is given. So you can definitely defend yourself against people who wear uniform, especially since it is widely known that soldiers commit attrocities and are a real threat to civilians and their property.

Re: Collective NAP

Malachi — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 15:33:15 GMT

If people join a team of aggressors they become aggressors. Just like the getaway driver is (usually) liable for the bank robbery. But it also does depend on the individual's acts. For example, would anyone say that Hans Munch should have been convicted at auschwitz? (he was not).

this is kind of an older issue, as more and more combatants are deciding that uniforms are unsuitable. As it stands now, the normal rules of engagement given to infantry troops are similar to what one would derive from the NAP (if one didnt think foreign occupying troops were trespassers, or if one believed that they could have legitimate police powers). Meaning you cant shoot someone in the performance of your official duties unless they demonstrate hostile actions or hostile intent, and you have positively identified them.

let me ask you something, if the crips put a death threat on your door at noon, and at midnight you saw a guy in your front yard wearing a blue hoodie and a blue bandanna, and holding an ak-47 would you shoot him, ask him to leave your property, or what?