Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

words, abuse, and violence

rated by 0 users
This post has 8 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 Posted: Tue, Jul 31 2012 3:00 AM

so is telling someone to fuck off something that would violate NAP?

im watching a video and the women is on a train and starts yelling at the other passengers and tells people to fuck off and go back to their own countries and won't accept that a black person is english.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0IOj1J-4Po

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

In my opinion, no. How can you possibly consider it to be? Maybe I just don't see it...

If I say you're ugly, did I violate the NAP? It may be unfortunate or immoral for me to attack you with words, but it does nothing to deprive you of life, liberty, or property.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Tue, Jul 31 2012 10:43 AM

From a strict NAP standpoint, no, you could call someone whatever you wanted and as long as you did not threaten them it would be fine. Now remember that in a free society the chances of a someone getting away with that are very small. If you owned that train would you want to allow crazies like that back on? Would you want to have your "minority" customers associate their train rides with that?

Just because we don't like something doesn't mean we should ban it. The NAP is essential in allowing society to exist. Banning the word "fuck" does not enhance societies' existence at all.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Tue, Jul 31 2012 8:44 PM

in the situation she was telling black people to get out of Britain and that they did not have a right to be in Britain. that Britain was her country and that by being black they were not British and did not belong and should leave Britain. it seems agressive that she wants black people to leave britain and can't accept their being there in britian or on the train.

i'm not saying ban the words, as much as i am thinking that a private business could have a contract and that if people scream at other customers there could be consequences in the contract for how the situation will be dealt with. this way it's not banning any words, but allowing business owners to create consequences for when passengers verbally abuse other passengers.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

Well sure, I don't think anyone would object to that. But it's not a violation of the NAP. It could be a violation of contract with a company while using their services. Just like a movie theater could refuse to serve anyone wearing "offensive" clothing. "Offensive" clothing does not violate or infringe on anyone's rights to life, liberty, or property. Therefore wearing "offensive" clothing does not violate the NAP, but individuals could discriminate against people that wear "offensive" clothing, as in refusing to enter into contracts or otherwise interact if they wish.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Wed, Aug 1 2012 12:22 PM

It is a violation of the NAP. It is trespassing. As soon as someone starts talking like that they are no longer welcome on the property of the company, ergo they are trespassing.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165

While it might be a good assumption that a business owner would condemn a patron that talked like that, it is an assumption nonetheless. Again, simply words like that cannot be considered a violation of the NAP. Only aggression against the wishes of property owner can be considered a violation of the NAP, and in such cases, yes, the verbal abuser could then be accused of violation of contract or trespassing, for example.

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

I should point out that loud noises can in some cases be violations of the NAP. I am not saying this one is, I am saying that blasting people with megaphones might well be a violation of the NAP.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Aug 1 2012 6:15 PM
Communication can be aggression, yup
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS