I just watched a YouTube video about someone who cheated to win Millionaire (Major Fraud). I'm trying to figure out whether this is a violation of the NAP. It seems not. I'd imagine that contestants basically make a contract that they won't cheat, and if they are found to be cheating, will have their prize revoked. Beyond that, I don't think there was any aggression. I suppose it could be framed that they paid him for what he clamed was a genuine performance, but it turns out he misrepresented himself as a contestant and thus defrauded the show.
Well, the show is basically a contractual exchange: fulfill these conditions under these rules and you will receive moneys based on how well you do.
Any attempt to subvert those rules I think would qualify as an indirect aggression, as trying to receive value outside the agreed-upon rules, similar to fraud in a contract.
It wouldn't be too different from agreeing to provide 20 barrels of mackerel at a certain price and the providing instead 20 barrels of a species that look like mackerel (iow, his performance was a fraud).
Committing fraud is committing aggression and therefore violates the NAP. The individual made a legitimate trade of labor for money, in this case the expected value of the game show payoff and agreed to behave in a certain way. That individual violated that agreement and defrauded the game show of its property, he literally stole the property. And the owner of the game show has a right to claim the property be returned with compensation for costs incurred in the fraud.
How exactly did he cheat anyway? Accomplice in audience?
As Anenome and Bogart said, cheating on a gameshow is a violation of the NAP because it's a form of fraud and fraud is a form of theft. Aggression doesn't require violence per se.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Well, it is a violation if this specific sort of breach of contract is considered unlawful aggression. Otherwise it's not.
Consider by whom? By any justice mechanism of decision being applyied to sort out the specific situation, given specific circumstances.
Is it possible to know a priori what things are and what aren't instances of unlawful aggression, and to embed such knowledge in some abstract, pure and non-circumstancial "NAP", so that it will hold true no matter what?
No, I'm affraid it is not.
So, what's the point with this whole "Does X-action violate NAP?" template?
I wanted to know whether it violated the NAP (and if so, the reasoning) so I could better understand the NAP. If it didn't, it would be some aspect of our current system.
So basically, as I understand people's answers here, if one makes a contract with someone, there are things that don't fulfill it (and invoke something civil described in the contract). There are also things outside the contract that are fraud, which is criminal. Fraud can occur more generally in any exchange, regardless of whether a contract is used. And it makes sense, since fraud is an attempt to deceive the other party, to cause them to do things based in incorrect information, and thus without their consent. This is different from merely failing to fulfill a contract, like not delivering the goods (with the receiver knowing they weren't delivered) or failing to meet the stipulated quality standards and not being deceptive that this is the case.