Donny with an A:Monkey, an important distinction needs to be made between punishment and restitution.
Semantics. One mans restitution is anothers punishment. I stole your property and was ordered to pay you X amount of dollars to you as resitution. I pay you the money, which I don't really have in the first place (thus the reason for the theft) which I preceive as a punishment for my crime. They are one and the same as far as I'm concerned.
"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.
JCFolsom:I think, to be able to create a coherent and consistent morality, we need to be willing to approach actions a little less... empirically?
But you've already said that we should take these things on a case-by-case basis, i.e., empirically: doesn't that rule out creating a rule or principle to follow?
Donny with an A:No, I'm saying that the right to self-determination is presumptive, and legitimately overrideable in certain situations. I think that self-defense is one kind of example in which it is permissible to infringe upon someone's right to self-determination, but I don't think it's the only kind of example (shoving an aimless drunk out of the way of an oncoming bus, for an uncontroversial example). It seems to me that the child's life provides us with a morally significant reason for infringing upon the boat owner's right to self-determination, and so it would not be unjust to do so.
The problem with this is that in the case of self-defense you are being aggressed against and pushing the drunk out of the way of an oncoming bus presumable he would consent to it if he could and will later endorse your action. In the transporter/boat case, there is no aggression and no consent and presummably no later endorsement. The transporter/boad hypos are not analogous.
Donny with an A:I'm not saying that the boat owner has an enforceable obligation to save the child (I'm not sure that I completely accept the view that no such obligation exists, but that's not important for the example we're talking about).
Well, moral obligation and legally enforceable moral obligation are two different things. Are you saying you're not sure if the latter doesn't exist?
Donny with an A:An enforceable obligation to save the child would mean that I would be justified in forcing the boat owner to save the child himself.
Not necessarily. It could also justify you using his property to save the child.
Donny with an A:I'm saying that the boat owner would seem to need to call upon a standard of justice in order to complain about my infringing upon his rights which would almost certainly condemn his own actions.
Well, no, I think at a minimum the burden before the law is on the one who "borrows" the transporter/boat without consent. Innocent before proven guilty, sure, but once proven that he took the transporter/boat without consent I think he needs to show he had a justifiable reason for doing what is normally illegal.
Donny with an A:That's not to say that it follows that both parties aren't acting unjustly; maybe they are (two wrongs don't make a right). It's just an observation. It just seems to me that if you have a duty to do X, and wrongfully fail to do X, then I may be able to justify doing things which involve harm being done to you in order to bring about X.
It certainly seems you've abandoned libertarian rights. It also seems you're confusing two or three different senses of justice here. I think if you go this route you open the door to statism.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
macsnafu:But you've already said that we should take these things on a case-by-case basis, i.e., empirically: doesn't that rule out creating a rule or principle to follow?
I still hold to the case-by-case basis thing, I'm just having a bit of trouble putting this concept into words. Indeed, what I'm really saying is, no action can be evaluated outside of its context and the perceived motivation of the actor. Take the example of your disarming the man pointing the gun at the store clerk. There are at least four possibilities here.
1. The man was a robber. You did the right thing by disarming him.
2. The man had just taken the gun from the clerk, who had been threatening him for some dispute over a girlfriend. You were wrong to take the gun, but you acted in good faith.
3. The clerk is the actual robber who had the gun taken by the nimble customer, and you took the gun because you are the clerk's accomplice.
4. This man is actually just showing the clerk the gun, and the clerk is not alarmed, and you know this, but you take the gun to stop an assault outside.
Certainly, an identical action here should be treated differently, no?
kingmonkey: Donny with an A:Monkey, an important distinction needs to be made between punishment and restitution. Semantics. One mans restitution is anothers punishment. I stole your property and was ordered to pay you X amount of dollars to you as resitution. I pay you the money, which I don't really have in the first place (thus the reason for the theft) which I preceive as a punishment for my crime. They are one and the same as far as I'm concerned.
Well, no, there is an important and very objective distinction in libertarian legal theory between restitution (monetary compensation) and retributive punishment. We often use 'punishment' colloguially and sloppily to refer to both, but the two are distinct. A number of libertarians subscribe to a restitution-only model of justice.
JCFolsom: I still hold to the case-by-case basis thing, I'm just having a bit of trouble putting this concept into words. Indeed, what I'm really saying is, no action can be evaluated outside of its context and the perceived motivation of the actor. Take the example of your disarming the man pointing the gun at the store clerk. There are at least four possibilities here.
I guess my example was a bad one. It's morally ambiguous because of a lack of information, not because of a true moral dilemma. Each of your possibilities is clear enough once understood. Unless the moral dilemma is the one of how to act when one lacks enough information to be fully aware of the situation.
In each case, the motions are the same. In each case, you are aggressing someone and taking their gun for a reason other than self-defense. Yet, in only one would I think they were being villainous, and thus that punishment would be appropriate.
macsnafu: JCFolsom: I still hold to the case-by-case basis thing, I'm just having a bit of trouble putting this concept into words. Indeed, what I'm really saying is, no action can be evaluated outside of its context and the perceived motivation of the actor. Take the example of your disarming the man pointing the gun at the store clerk. There are at least four possibilities here. I guess my example was a bad one. It's morally ambiguous because of a lack of information, not because of a true moral dilemma.
I guess my example was a bad one. It's morally ambiguous because of a lack of information, not because of a true moral dilemma.
Most moral hypotheticals are, I think.
JCFolsom: In each case, the motions are the same. In each case, you are aggressing someone and taking their gun for a reason other than self-defense. Yet, in only one would I think they were being villainous, and thus that punishment would be appropriate.
I think it is mistaken to say that you are aggressing in all four cases. Version 1 is not aggression. Version 2 is not intentional aggression (intentionality is important for ascribing moral blame; legal penalties may still be incurred from unintentional aggression). Versions 3 and 4 are cases of intentional aggression.
No, the actual problem here is that very few individuals on these boards have done the basic reading on ethical matters, let alone so much as read Rothbard's contributions on the topic. So, it is then easy to say anarcho-capitalism falls because the NAP is not absolute. Well, the latter has already been noted by libertarian theorists, and is far from sufficient to undermine the system. And it is not like the books exploring these topics are obscure - they've been mentioned a hundred times over.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
nhaag: Another fallacy. As always when morale and rights intermix. The NAP states that it is a crime to start aggression against another party. Now a crime is not a moral entity (what is good and what is bad), but it is a violation of anothers right and voilation of rights means the aggressed has the right to get compensation. So taking the position that NAP is an absolute right - which it is as it gives the aggressed the absolute right to have him replaced into the state he was before the aggression took place - does not a bit force me to say it is right or worng in a moral sense to save the guys life. It only means, that if i agress against the owner of your cool device,I am commiting a crime. Yet, remember, a crime in the libertarian sense does not have a moral dimension. So yes, if i choose to act in that way, i have commited a crime against the guy with the gadget and he has a right to be compensated for my crime. Isn't that easy? So NAP is an abslute right, but rights are not moral categories in any way. Something is not right or wrong, because I believe it to be ethical to act in a certain way. Bottomline, if I have to commit a crime to survive, the buck stops here, and I might cmmit that crime, but it has consequences. Again the fallacy is to intermix property rights with morality and ethics. Does that make sense and refute the claim?
Another fallacy. As always when morale and rights intermix. The NAP states that it is a crime to start aggression against another party. Now a crime is not a moral entity (what is good and what is bad), but it is a violation of anothers right and voilation of rights means the aggressed has the right to get compensation. So taking the position that NAP is an absolute right - which it is as it gives the aggressed the absolute right to have him replaced into the state he was before the aggression took place - does not a bit force me to say it is right or worng in a moral sense to save the guys life. It only means, that if i agress against the owner of your cool device,I am commiting a crime. Yet, remember, a crime in the libertarian sense does not have a moral dimension.
So yes, if i choose to act in that way, i have commited a crime against the guy with the gadget and he has a right to be compensated for my crime. Isn't that easy?
So NAP is an abslute right, but rights are not moral categories in any way. Something is not right or wrong, because I believe it to be ethical to act in a certain way.
Bottomline, if I have to commit a crime to survive, the buck stops here, and I might cmmit that crime, but it has consequences.
Again the fallacy is to intermix property rights with morality and ethics.
Does that make sense and refute the claim?
The point remains that NAP is not an absolute moral or ethical system as you so expertly pointed out. The reason this is even brought up is because NAP is often said to be the moral argument for ancap. Those that use it say that they need not explain the practical considerations of ancap because the moral argument alone is enough. But the moral argument is not absolute. We can't expect people to change over to a system because of some principle that, as a moral system, does not always lead to the most moral decision. They need more than that and they should need more than that. It must be about the practicality, the viability of the system. And it is no coincidence that that is what it normally takes to convince most people to adopt ancap. They need to know that it would work and NAP does not prove that it would.
You have definately identified the fallacy of the anarchists whose sole argument for ancap is morals :)
It can be morally correct to take the boat and morally correct to require the hero to pay compensation. If not paying compensation upsets the social order and opens the door to all kinds of problems associated with not having a consistent legal framework, then requiring the payment of compensation would be the morally correct action. If there are not a lot of unintended consequences, then not requiring him to pay compensation would be the morally correct thing to do. This is all based on the survival framework that I posted earlier. Now, in ancap, I think it is extremely likely that the hero will pay any compensation or that the boat owner will suffer a loss. Think about it, the boat owner's insurance company has to pay him whatever compensation and then they can go after the hero to reimburse them. But why would they? This would be a major story in that town and if the insurance company was suing the hero, that would be incredibly bad PR. The insurance company would absorb the costs and life would go on. It would just be an operating cost for the insurance companies in handling these situations. The extra cost would be added to everyone's premium in form of perhaps a hundredth of a penny. Now this resolution is even more moral than the other solutions above. See how nicely things get solved in ancap? This is an excellent example of how ANCAP != NAP. Even though NAP is not absolute in a moral sense, it is still blatently obvious that ancap would solve this very same situation far better than statism. In statism, things may or may not work out this nicely - it depends on the jury because you could certainly be tried. In ancap, the hero's free and clear as he should be.
One thing to keep in mind is that if the transporter owner were not there, you would not be worse off. His denial you the use of the equipment is equivalent to his nonexistence. E.g., we can speculate that he may have agreed to climb the mountain with you only on the condition that he would not be robbed even in a lifeboat situation. If he had known that you would break your promise (or contract), he might have not come with you at all, in which case, again, absolutism with regard to the non-aggression principle is the same as acknowledging that the transporter is a lucky accident but one which you just as accidentally have no right to use.
Second, if we are utilitarians, then this is a conflict between rule and act utilitarianism. If we are deontologists, then this can be cashed out as a conflict between strict deontology and deontology with thresholds. In other words, there are moral theories that allow you to seize the transporter.
gigaplex:The point remains that NAP is not an absolute moral or ethical system as you so expertly pointed out. The reason this is even brought up is because NAP is often said to be the moral argument for ancap. Those that use it say that they need not explain the practical considerations of ancap because the moral argument alone is enough. But the moral argument is not absolute.
I fail to see how you or anyone else has provided the death knell for NAP as being absolute. The NAP IS absolute and will always be absolute no matter the cause for violating it. The only thing that is not absolute is peoples willingness to abide by it. You NEVER have the right to initiate force or violence against anyone. But you always have the right to self-defense. That is the basis of the NAP. You might THINK you have the right to initiate force or violence against another person but in reality you do not, under any circumstances, have that right. The scenario of a dying man on a mountain presents no proof that the NAP is not absolute. It only shows that people are willing to violate it which is where you go wrong. You seem to believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if people are placed in an extreme situation then the non-aggression principle fails and is thus a false concept. But that is the furthest from the truth! In fact it is in these situations where the NAP is the strongest! It is in the extreme examples, the life boat situations, where the NAP is most needed!
The Titanic is sinking so who has the right to decide who gets in the limited amount of life boats? Every man for himself? Sure you could do that. But the NAP provides the ABSOLUTE answer to that question -- the person who owns the Titanic or their representative. That means if that ship is sinking the captain, as the representative of the owners, has the right to determine who can get in the life boats. The capatain could say that women, children and one man may get in the boats and that is the end of the story. Now, whether or not people choose to obey those orders is another thing but that doesn't mean the principle is false or not absolute. I will absolute get a speeding ticket if I go 110 in a 30 mph zone. I don't have to abide by that rule but if don't I will be subject to the penalties of breaking it -- even if I'm rushing a man to the hospital who is about to bleed out.
Is it morally justifiable to save a mans life? Yes. Is it morally justifiable to steal someone elses property in order to do it? No. Would I do it? Yes. Should I be punished for it? Yes, if that is what the property owner wants. Without the NAP you cannot have freedom. The NAP is one of the basis for freedom because without it you open up the possibility for all manner of tyranny and oppression (like we have today). That is the absolute truth.
kingmonkey:Is it morally justifiable to save a mans life? Yes. Is it morally justifiable to steal someone elses property in order to do it? No. Would I do it? Yes. Should I be punished for it? Yes, if that is what the property owner wants. Without the NAP you cannot have freedom. The NAP is one of the basis for freedom because without it you open up the possibility for all manner of tyranny and oppression (like we have today). That is the absolute truth.
No, without the NAP, you won't always have freedom. But you can still have a lot of freedom. But then, in a sense, the NAP is itself a restriction on freedom. Nor is restitution truly self-defense. Nor is punishment.
As for the "all manner of tyranny and oppression", I never said that you should be able to steal from/assault someone because that's how you earn a paycheck. All my scenarios involve immediate, high-stakes situations. A government agent, going to collect taxes or the like, has no such justification. Third-party, well-planned actions will almost never carry the characteristics that justify aggression.
kingmonkey: Is it morally justifiable to save a mans life? Yes. Is it morally justifiable to steal someone elses property in order to do it? No. Would I do it? Yes. Should I be punished for it? Yes, if that is what the property owner wants. Without the NAP you cannot have freedom. The NAP is one of the basis for freedom because without it you open up the possibility for all manner of tyranny and oppression (like we have today). That is the absolute truth.
For a moral system to be correct ALL the time, it must lead to the correct decisions ALL the time. It's the "all the time" part that makes it absolute. What part of this has got you confused?
This doesn't mean that we should get rid of it or not use it across the board, it just means that the NAP is not some absolute secret of the universe.
gigaplex: For a moral system to be correct ALL the time, it must lead to the correct decisions ALL the time. It's the "all the time" part that makes it absolute. What part of this has got you confused? This doesn't mean that we should get rid of it or not use it across the board, it just means that the NAP is not some absolute secret of the universe.
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.
What you are trying to do is make it seem like the person who owns the transporter is making the wrong decision by not allowing you to use that device. It cannot be the wrong decision because that person living or dying is not the owner of that transporters problem since he is not the cause of his death. You might think it is his problem but I assure you it is not. The "right" thing to do is to try and save the mans life. The wrong thing to do is to violate my property in order to do it. You can choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing but either way the NAP is correct ALL the time. If you are one of the ones trying to save the mans life and I am the owner of the transporter and you steal my transporter you have made the WRONG decision even though you think it to be the right one. You might have saved a persons life but you have also violated my property. The NAP is correct all the time whether you want to abide by it or not.
Its always fun when people frame their situations to be devoid of consequence.
So lets say you steal the transporter but when you get off the mountain I shoot you for mugging the transporter's owner. Would you still do it? Is violating the NAP still such a good idea?
The point is that utility over rides the NAP. But if the NAP can be violated when the gain is great, why can it not also be violated when the gain is somewhat less? Why should the NAP not be violated if any gain at all is to be had? Of course that is exactly what we have today. NAP is violated whenever the state can gain at all. The State is doing the violating so only the State's utility is considered.
Peace
gigaplex:The point remains that NAP is not an absolute moral or ethical system as you so expertly pointed out.
I don't think that has necessarily been shown. In any event, I've argued that it doesn't matter.
gigaplex:You have definately identified the fallacy of the anarchists whose sole argument for ancap is morals :)
Uh...no, the argument for ancap does not rely solely on the non-aggression principle, much less on it being absolute.
JonBostwick:So lets say you steal the transporter but when you get off the mountain I shoot you for mugging the transporter's owner. Would you still do it? Is violating the NAP still such a good idea?
Ah, but your shooting the "mugger" after the fact is a murder, because your action does not achieve an end for someone else equal to or greater than what is lost by the person you shoot. It's just vengeance.
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.
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.
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 :)
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?
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 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.