Questions regarding the Non Aggression Axiom, Consequentialism & Natural Law with regards to Anarchy

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie here, and hoping to find some answers regarding the NAP.

I'm roughly 120 pages into "The Ethics of Liberty". Although Rothbard did go very far into justifying Natural Law, I found that the NAP was a wonderful basis which met the requirements of universal ethic etc. Of course my understanding of critiques concerning the NAP are limited.

Now, I started reading a book called "But who will build the roads? Market Anarchy Explained" by Francois Tremblay. And apart from a couple of issues which I actually share with this book review...

http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/bill/bill1.html (in which I did notice that the rather "lame" IMO critique of the NAP was touched upon, but his response does not help me for the matters I came across below),

There is one in particular that is really nagging me. Reason being that I do not feel entirely comfortable in the reasoning and ethics of the NAP, and so am not sure who is right/wrong.

So the critique of the NAP comes down to it's inability to distinguish between two forms of "aggression", and this is impractical and unworkable in society. It defies reality. The extra strange part is that Mr. Tremblay regards the NAP as something solely used by minarchist libertarians and seems to be blissfully unaware that many Anarcho-Capitalists use this as a basis. , The author uses David's Friedman's critique from "machinery of freedom", This is effectively Friedman's argument in the context of Absolute property rights (which may also be incorrect, because I wonder if this touches on the issues of legitimately earned property and in fact ignores it).

"But what counts as interfering? If I fire a thousand megawatt laser beam at your front door I am surely violating your property rights, just as much as if I used a machine gun. But what if I reduce the intensity of the beam--say to the brightness of a flashlight? If you have an absolute right to control your land, then the intensity of the laser beam should not matter. Nobody has a right to use your property without your permission, so it is up to you to decide whether you will or will not put up with any particular invasion."

Now my particular problem is that If I define the NAP as this...

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor"

Murray N. Rothbard - War, Peace, and the State, The Myth of National Defense

And define Aggression as this ...

"It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force (violence), the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense against aggression. "

I fail to see how a laser beam as intense as a floodlight is aggressive.

Now I actually discussed this issue with the Author himself in an attempt to garner how exactly the flashlight beam is aggression. The author was not very forthcoming, and unfortunately the thread if far too long to post here. He simply avoided answering the question, and when he did, his response was, that is aggression, so the NAP cannot work, and society will crumble.

It is my impression that the Author is a utilitarian (although he denies this) since from this point I gather that he agrees with Freidman's basis for Anarcho-Capitalism. Author : "Obviously Friedman has an equally sound basis for A-C without the NAP, so how can it be a founding principle?" (with regard to the NAP, even though I repeatedly pointed out that Rothbard who actually coined the term used the NAP as his basis for Anarhco-Capitalism. )

I also repeatedly asked the Author if he was familiar with Rothbard, in particular The Ethics of Liberty. He did not answer.

In addition he claimed I was a consequentialist. This was because I said he was not examining the consequences of the particular action,Intense Laser beam vs Floodlight intense beam. As one clearly contradicts the NAP, and so far I fail to see how the latter does. Now the reason why I think (perhaps mistakenly) that I'm not a consequentialist, is because I am not in fact justifying the means by the ends. I'm merely examining the means themselves.

However, I came across this in "The Ethics of Liberty" 16. Knowledge, True & False, Pg 121

"And yet, surely the legality or illegality should depend not on the motivation of the actor, but on the objective nature of the act. If an action is objectively non-invasive, then it should be legal...." (The context of this quote is Rothbard stating that the motivations of a comment made by Smith concerning Jones are irrelevant, in a point against libel laws)

So should I try to be justifying the NAP by examining the Objective nature of an act? I'm sure this has something to with intrinsic... action? Not sure really.

So my questions to you are...

1) Is a floodlight intense laser beam a contradiction of the NAP. Is so, is this a practical problem?

2) Was my reasoning in fact that of a consequentialist? (I personally do not justify the means by the ends.) Are they confusing the term? Or am I confusing my reasoning?

Now I have not yet got into the issue of noise pollution, light pollution, air pollution. And I would like to explore those realms at some point. But for the time being I would posts to focus on the above questions.

loweleif:

I fail to see how a laser beam as intense as a floodlight is aggressive.

 

Good question.

The flashlight is not an act of aggression. However, If the owner asks the person to remove the light and they refuse then the situation becomes more complex. Standing still is not aggressive, but doing it while refusing to leave someone else's property is.

You also have to consider proportionality, just because someone violates the NAP does not mean they are automatically fair game to be murder. A laser burning through your door merits a proportional reaction and so does a flash light.

 

JonBostwick:

"The flashlight is not an act of aggression. However, If the owner asks the person to remove the light and they refuse then the situation becomes more complex. Standing still is not aggressive, but doing it while refusing to leave someone else's property is."

True, but if I stand still on someone's property they can use force to eject me from their property. Why? Because I'm obstructing him from a piece of his property, albeit passively. Does the flashlight fit the criteria? Could be argued the burden is on the one who feels the flashlight to block it, e.g wall (but only within their property.) Just like they can eject me from their property but no further.

JonBostwick:

"You also have to consider proportionality, just because someone violates the NAP does not mean they are automatically fair game to be murder. A laser burning through your door merits a proportional reaction and so does a flash light.

Agreed. Rothbard went so far even to say, rather then a "tooth for a tooth" why not extend it to "Two teeth (possibly two plus?) for a tooth".

Personally, I think that an anarchist society would be a very polite society. Neighbors who go out of their way to be annoying - flashlight scenario - would be generating bad karma which would not be a good thing in a society where all interactions were voluntary. It's easy to get mired down in specific scenarios like this one, but let's not forget the big picture.

Speaking of 'corner case' scenarios - how's this one: you are a firm believer in property rights. You fall off a 40 story building, fortuitously catching hold of a flagpole sticking off of a 39th floor condo. The condo owner walks out to where you are hanging on for dear life, says 'get off of my property.' What do you do?

Scenario posited here, in a discussion between Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford:

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_01/editors-right.htm

loweleif:

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie here, and hoping to find some answers regarding the NAP. [...] So should I try to be justifying the NAP by examining the Objective nature of an act? I'm sure this has something to with intrinsic... action? Not sure really.

Thank you: an interesting thread. Welcome to the forum, and post often! ;)

In terms of ethics, I'm no Rothbardian (though I've partially read The Ethics of Liberty as you have), and though it seems on the face of it that it's easy to say that all interpersonal action must be ceased that "violates" another's person or property, the question of what exactly constitutes an objective violation (independent of the opinions of the actor or acted-upon) reveals difficulty with the NAP's application. Is a mega-laser pointed momentarily on a neighbor's front door a property violation? Perhaps. But, as you said, if this is so, isn't another light 99% as powerful, another 98% as powerful, and so on down to the light on the end of some ballpoint pens, also a property violation?

One way out of the flashlight problem might be a positive obligation such as, "You should always treat others as they want to be treated," which, if followed as intended, would prevent some individuals from turning up brightness, sound, etc., to levels that they believe would irritate their neighbors. But even this isn't bulletproof (ignoring for a moment that such an obligation is categorically barred from Rothbardianism to begin with): upon finding out that a neighbor disapproves of any light within a 50 ft. radius of his house at night (and you live 20 ft. away), you'd have to refrain from opening a refridgerator door near a window lest you commit an ethical breech. Obviously, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Another idea might be a simpler obligation such as, "You should always treat others with kindness," but short of an objective example of what exactly constitutes kindness people would again disagree on application. [EDIT: I take that back. Even with an objective example of behavior people would disagree on interpretation of that example, as we see in the case of disagreements among Christians imitating Jesus Christ's allegedly objective example.]

Actually, none of my speculations really have an answer for you. I've become skeptical over the past several months in the ability of any alleged objective ethical standard (including the NAP) to really be tied down to a naturalistic paradigm in light of application problems pertaining to biological regression. But many would disagree with me on that. In any event, armchair theorizing is always fun.

I'll give it some more thought.

Well, there are some clear cases of aggression - murder, for instance.  The things government does, out of necessity, are aggressive, such as taxation, and fall under this first consideration.  Under A-C, I imagine any legal system would have to ban these, in order to be sustainable.  There are other things that are clearly not aggression, such as free trade.  Under A-C, I imagine most legal systems would not ban these things, but some would ban some non-aggressive acts.  Then there are grey area scenarios, which is why under A-C we have competing legal systems.  I see no need to prophesy what freedom would produce. 

 On the flagpole question, banning aggression doesn't mean that aggression won't take place, just that it will be punished.  Only leaders of governments are silly enough to think that their words have the magical power to prevent it from ever happening.

ozzy43:

Personally, I think that an anarchist society would be a very polite society. Neighbors who go out of their way to be annoying - flashlight scenario - would be generating bad karma which would not be a good thing in a society where all interactions were voluntary. It's easy to get mired down in specific scenarios like this one, but let's not forget the big picture.

 

Well the practicality in this particular scenario does not bother me, because I think social ostracization would be an effective tool against such a "pesky" neighbor. In addition the neighbor can take methods to deal with this, such as putting up blinds, so that the light does not affect them whilst they are inside. And who is to say that these two neighbors could not come upon an agreement?

ozzy43:

speaking of 'corner case' scenarios - how's this one: you are a firm believer in property rights. You fall off a 40 story building, fortuitously catching hold of a flagpole sticking off of a 39th floor condo. The condo owner walks out to where you are hanging on for dear life, says 'get off of my property.' What do you do? Scenario posited here, in a discussion between Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_01/editors-right.htm

  Thank you very much! That link was most illuminating. I think I've got some leads now to explore the realms of moral philosophy.

JAlanKatz:

Well, there are some clear cases of aggression - murder, for instance.

Aggression, by definition, is involuntarily interpersonal. Likewise, murder is also involuntarily interpersonal by definition and is, thus, aggressive. What you have said amounts to:

"Well, there are some clear cases of aggression - [this particular example of aggression], for instance."

The only clarity in this case is tautological.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I shall try. BTW, does the forum have a list of forum rules?

Dynamix:

In terms of ethics, I'm no Rothbardian (though I've partially read The Ethics of Liberty as you have), and though it seems on the face of it that it's easy to say that all interpersonal action must be ceased that "violates" another's person or property, the question of what exactly constitutes an objective violation (independent of the opinions of the actor or acted-upon) reveals difficulty with the NAP's application. Is a mega-laser pointed momentarily on a neighbor's front door a property violation? Perhaps. But, as you said, if this is so, isn't another light 99% as powerful, another 98% as powerful, and so on down to the light on the end of some ballpoint pens, also a property violation?

 

Well I wouldn't go as far to say that all interpersonal action that violates another person or property must be ceased as the NAP gives grounds for retaliatory action.
Well if a mega-laser was pointed at the door, it might fall under the threat clause.
But here is the part that bothers me...the power of the beam is not so much the issue as the damage that it actually does. As has already been stated, there is a difference between a slap and a breaking one's arm, and the Rothbard's interpretation of the NAP allowed proportionate force to each. However, by examining the the amount of damage done, and saying one is a violation (mega-laser) and the other is not (floodlights) does this make me a consequentialist?

Dynamix:

One way out of the flashlight problem might be a positive obligation such as, "You should always treat others as they want to be treated," which, if followed as intended, would prevent some individuals from turning up brightness, sound, etc., to levels that they believe would irritate their neighbors. But even this isn't bulletproof (ignoring for a moment that such an obligation is categorically barred from Rothbardianism to begin with): upon finding out that a neighbor disapproves of any light within a 50 ft. radius of his house at night (and you live 20 ft. away), you'd have to refrain from opening a refridgerator door near a window lest you commit an ethical breech. Obviously, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Another idea might be a simpler obligation such as, "You should always treat others with kindness," but short of an objective example of what exactly constitutes kindness people would again disagree on application. [EDIT: I take that back. Even with an objective example of behavior people would disagree on interpretation of that example, as we see in the case of disagreements among Christians imitating Jesus Christ's allegedly objective example.] Actually, none of my speculations really have an answer for you. I've become skeptical over the past several months in the ability of any alleged objective ethical standard (including the NAP) to really be tied down to a naturalistic paradigm in light of application problems pertaining to biological regression. But many would disagree with me on that. In any event, armchair theorizing is always fun. I'll give it some more thought.

 

With regards to the "ethical breach" lol.
Yes the "You should always treat others as they want to be treated" does not meet the universal requirement as you pointed out.
Well although that skepticism may be grounded, I might just make it my pursuit to come up with or improve on the current objective ethical standard.

loweleif:

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I shall try. BTW, does the forum have a list of forum rules?

Yep - http://mises.com/forums/t/19.aspx

Well I wouldn't go as far to say that all interpersonal action that violates another person or property must be ceased as the NAP gives grounds for retaliatory action.

I think you may have misunderstood me. Essentially, what I meant was, "All action that violates another's person or property (i.e., that which is aggressive, i.e., that which is unethical, i.e., that which we shouldn't do) should be ceased (shouldn't be done)." To say that we shouldn't do what shouldn't be done isn't controversial. Whether or not the NAP lays moral groundwork for retaliatory action in the case of X is independent of the question of whether or not X is moral to begin with.

But here is the part that bothers me...the power of the beam is not so much the issue as the damage that it actually does. As has already been stated, there is a difference between a slap and a breaking one's arm, and the Rothbard's interpretation of the NAP allowed proportionate force to each. However, by examining the the amount of damage done, and saying one is a violation (mega-laser) and the other is not (floodlights) does this make me a consequentialist?

My distinction between deontology and consequentialism might be a little hazy (others feel free to correct me here), but it seems to me that you're searching for the effect (damage) of a cause (light) before making a judgment. I'm not sure that this is consequentialism. Actually, in order to meet that criteria I think you'd have to take both the cause and effect into account and then judge the moral nature of the action relative to other, more pressing gains or losses (consequences).

For example, I turned a mega-laser on to your house and burned a hole through it. "You can't just burn holes through people's houses! Wrong!" says the deontologist. "But he turned on the laser so that he could scare away the encroaching UFO army, who otherwise would have annihilated the whole city! So it was Right!" says the consequentialist.

I think that's a working example. Intent might also play into it. In the case of the slap and the broken arm, if one observes someone else intending to strike and break another's arm and sees it glance off instead (a miss, a "slap"), it's still understood what the intended effect was (a broken arm). Such an action might still be condemned as immoral by the deontologist by an understanding of the intentional, if not actual, effect.

[EDIT: Whether or not something as petty as an intended slap on the wrist is immoral if the acted-upon individual expressly prohibited it in advance...I don't know. Probably.]

Well although that skepticism may be grounded, I might just make it my pursuit to come up with or improve on the current objective ethical standard.

Please do! :)

Cheers.

Dynamix:

think you may have misunderstood me... "All action that violates another's person or property ,,,,) should be ceased (shouldn't be done)."... Whether or not the NAP lays moral groundwork for retaliatory action in the case of X is independent of the question of whether or not X is moral to begin with.

 

I did indeed misunderstand you. Earlier you stated "... question of what exactly constitutes an objective violation (independent of the opinions of the actor or acted-upon) reveals difficulty with the NAP's application." I'm terribly sorry, but this point slipped passed me. That nullifies my point really.
. I just realized something. (Although I'm sure it's been touched upon by Rand in other's with regards to emergency lifeboat situations.) The NAP is a universal ethic, and just because it's own believers may contradict it does not make it invalid or nonsense (after all we are humans not robots).
For if I were on a plane, and was asked to peacefully leave the premises of the plane, I would gladly go to court and compensate/take the punishment proportional to my resistance. Yet creator's of such scenario's demand that if I believe in such a principle that I must hold myself to it even in such extreme circumstances. But in actual fact I do! By being taken to court, the retaliatory action is taken over the other course of sure suicide. So the NAP is still fulfilled, and enforced. By holding the NAP I would not say this sprinkle's magical moral pixie dust with the result of world peace.

Dynamix:

My distinction between deontology and consequentialism might be a little hazy (others feel free to correct me here), but it seems to me that you're searching for the effect (damage) of a cause (light) before making a judgment. I'm not sure that this is consequentialism. Actually, in order to meet that criteria I think you'd have to take both the cause and effect into account and then judge the moral nature of the action relative to other, more pressing gains or losses (consequences). For example, I turned a mega-laser on to your house and burned a hole through it. "You can't just burn holes through people's houses! Wrong!" says the deontologist. "But he turned on the laser so that he could scare away the encroaching UFO army, who otherwise would have annihilated the whole city! So it was Right!" says the consequentialist.

 

Those were my sentiments exactly but I was unable to articulate it. Cheers. I really am not a fan of some consequentialist theories e.g utilitarianism. If my argument was indeed consequentialism (In fact one would have to tie down exactly what type of consequentialism it was) why I would feel like a zealous christian who blasphemed.

Dynamix:

I think that's a working example. Intent might also play into it. I..., effect.

 

I don't know enough about Deontology however intent would most likely fall in threat of violence.

Dynamix:

Please do! :)

 

I'll get back to you in 60 years.

A quick warning to everyone about Mr Francois Tremblay. He is a former objectivist and retains that incredibly dogmatic disposition. Never, ever attempt to engage him in argument since you will waste your time. Any one who has argued with him on Strike the Root and Facebook will know this.

Loweleif:

(I personally do not justify the means by the ends.)

Then by what do you justify them, if not the ends?

 Welcome to the forum by the way.  I might work out a longer answer to some of your questions later, when I have a bit more time.  I agree with Physiocrat, FWIW. I'm not a fan of Mr Tremblay. I think many people on this forum are far more knowledgeable than he is.

Inquisitor:

Loweleif:

(I personally do not justify the means by the ends.)

Then by what do you justify them, if not the ends?

 

Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.

The State claims that ends justifies means when they rob us in the name of "society."

Well thank you.

Inquisitor:

Loweleif: (I personally do not justify the means by the ends.)

Then by what do you justify them, if not the ends?

 

The answer above by JonBostwick is quite correct. However, I could say that "The ends do not justify illegitimate means". And then you may say well, what's illegitimate? Well, anything that contradicts the rights of self ownership. > NAP

Inquisitor:

I'm not a fan of Mr Tremblay. I think many people on this forum are far more knowledgeable than he is.

 

Perhaps. However the review on Strike-The-Root was fairly accurate, and the author doesn't necessarily make the idea's in the book suffer. He's pretty much written a basic summary of A-C thought, albeit with a slight/moderate David Friedman influence.

Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.

The State claims that ends justifies means when they rob us in the name of "society."

True. If the action involves robbery in the name of the 'greater good' it never will be just at all.

 

Just to clarify on Mr Tremblay he has some good ideas and is an interesting read. But just don't debate with him; you may aswell hit your head against the wall. 

Physiocrat:

A quick warning to everyone about Mr Francois Tremblay. He is a former objectivist and retains that incredibly dogmatic disposition. Never, ever attempt to engage him in argument since you will waste your time. Any one who has argued with him on Strike the Root and Facebook will know this.

 

Physiocrat:

Just to clarify on Mr Tremblay he has some good ideas and is an interesting read. But just don't debate with him; you may aswell hit your head against the wall. 

double post?

JonBostwick:

Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.

 

Although I think intuitively understand this, could you please expand on this for me? By the term merit, do you mean we must judge the inherent nature of the action? Inherent right's and wrong's? And where do we get this from? The NAP?

ozzy43:

The condo owner walks out to where you are hanging on for dear life, says 'get off of my property.' What do you do?

Climb into his condo through the window, walk out the front door, and take the elevator down. If he objects, he can sue for restitution.

loweleif:

1) Is a floodlight intense laser beam a contradiction of the NAP. Is so, is this a practical problem?

2) Was my reasoning in fact that of a consequentialist? (I personally do not justify the means by the ends.) Are they confusing the term? Or am I confusing my reasoning?

 

 

Deontology and consequentialism are actually not the only types of ethics. There is a third way that I prefer: virtue ethics. There is a burgeoning tradition of Aristotelian libertarianism that developts a theory of natural rights out of a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics. See, for example, major works by Roderick Long, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, and Henry Veatch.

 I'm actually moving towards virtue ethics from deontology. I think contractarianism is also a separate form of ethics, as I can't see it stemming from any of the other groupings.

JonBostwick:

Actions must be legitimate on their own merit.

How can an action be separated from the result of that action? If one performs an action which is known to always cause a certain event, how can that event be separated from the action itself? The event must always follow the action.

In much of mathematics and physics, causality is seen as an illusion. I'm curious as to why this observation doesn't seem to influence ethics (or at least the ethics that I read). I'd argue that dentological morals evolved because of the extreme difficulty in knowing all of the effects of an action, but they aren't necessarily valid for all scenarios.

I agree that Tremblay is interesting to read, even if you don't reach the same conclusions he does.

As for the original question, there's always one thing you can do if there's a question of whether not a rights-violation has occurred:  third-party arbitration.  However, if you have a libertarian society (or an AC society) with a reasonably functioning legal system, most such issues should already be addressed, and only occasionally would a novel situation present itself that needs to be sorted out from scratch.

The market process is a discovery process, even when it comes to legal problems--we don't have to solve all possible situations beforehand, and probably can't even if we tried.