Freedom is ...

[Dalkore]

my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.

ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?

Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why?

Yes.  If you are doing something harmful and all non-aggressive actions have been exhausted then I would reserve the right to take aggressive action to stop your harmful activities. 

[1715041599]

1715041599

[1715041599]

1715041599

[Rassah]

ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?

Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why?

Yes.  If you are doing something harmful and all non-aggressive actions have been exhausted then I would reserve the right to take aggressive action to stop your harmful activities.  

That's not initiating aggression, that's responding to someone else's.

[Dalkore]

ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?

Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why?

Yes.  If you are doing something harmful and all non-aggressive actions have been exhausted then I would reserve the right to take aggressive action to stop your harmful activities.  

That's not initiating aggression, that's responding to someone else's.

Doing something "Harmful" is not the same as being "Aggressive" unless there is some special definition I am unaware of?

[FirstAscent]

Hey, Rassah, where is the state that will let you grow opium poppies? Where is the state that will not subject you to the TSA? Where is the state that will let you hire who you wish for whatever job you wish, at whatever rate you wish, without all the paperwork and tax forms? For that matter, where is the state that will not steal your money for its own use, and that will prevent the federal government from doing so as well?

'Cause I'll help you move, if you help me.

Only one I'm aware of is my little, yellow, three-person inflatable boat that I have, whenever I row it out far enough into the ocean. Can't really live on it for too long (great for tanning and relaxing though)

Exactly. What has AnCap done for you lately? Answer: nothing.

[Rassah]

Doing something "Harmful" is not the same as being "Aggressive" unless there is some special definition I am unaware of?

I'm not a fan of the "aggression" term, either. Just think of it as:
Aggression - fucking with me or my property.

[Rassah]

Hey, Rassah, where is the state that will let you grow opium poppies? Where is the state that will not subject you to the TSA? Where is the state that will let you hire who you wish for whatever job you wish, at whatever rate you wish, without all the paperwork and tax forms? For that matter, where is the state that will not steal your money for its own use, and that will prevent the federal government from doing so as well?

'Cause I'll help you move, if you help me.

Only one I'm aware of is my little, yellow, three-person inflatable boat that I have, whenever I row it out far enough into the ocean. Can't really live on it for too long (great for tanning and relaxing though)

Exactly. What has AnCap done for you lately? Answer: nothing.

Uh, it kept my neighbors and myself on friendly terms that involve us respecting our individual yards despite the lack of fences? Just one tiny example.

[Anon136]

"which means simply that no one has the right to agress" what is the functional difference between this statement and "thou ought not aggres"?

None, you're right.

ah now we are getting to the heart of the matter! i do not believe that some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences. I believe this because i believe that allowing such behavior leads to outcomes that *i* do not prefer. Notice how this is different from the claim that this leads to outcomes that are universally non-preferable.

Not sure what you're trying to get at NAP is a society-based understanding, similar to offering a few selected ruling elite being a society-based understanding. It's not an individual preference.
Would you Peter an outcome where you are being hunted down or denied goods and services because earlier you preferred to initiate aggression against someone else?
The bigger issue, though, is that in our current state-run society we have some people who are allowed to initiate aggression, and some who aren't, regardless of whether the people involved prefer it that way. It essentially make some people "more equal" than others, simply because society agreed on it, and at times even when it didn't.

Oh im already a free market anarchist. Im just a consequentialist libertarian who doesnt recognize the legitimacy of many of the arguments of denotological libertarians like stefan moleneaux or myrkul. So where it counts we agree! i just find debate with other libertarians to be so much more stimulating than with people like firstassent so i nit pick and look for points of contention.

[Dalkore]

Doing something "Harmful" is not the same as being "Aggressive" unless there is some special definition I am unaware of?

I'm not a fan of the "aggression" term, either. Just think of it as:
Aggression - fucking with me or my property.

Well I am talking about Harmful and I reserve the right to initiate aggression to any acting harmfully in a way that is or potentially will affect me or my property.  The only way I would infringe on my right is if we form a government that we are both a part of and those laws will instead assert this right.  

In the end, this is exactly where I see the biggest flaw in NAP & AnCap as an extension.  It all sounds nice on paper but in the end, human nature does not work in this way and with that is just sounds like a system to give cover for people who want to externalize their impact and not give just recourse against them.   Its all about Person Responsibility and most people don't have much.  Until you fix that, AnCap and any all voluntary systems fall flat because of the people who will abuse these rules and others expense.  

[Rassah]

i just find debate with other libertarians to be so much more stimulating than with people like firstassent so i nit pick and look for points of contention.

Thank you. I definitely still need that, as I'm still forming my own views on all this.

[Rassah]

Well I am talking about Harmful and I reserve the right to initiate aggression to any acting harmfully in a way that is or potentially will affect me or my property.  The only way I would infringe on my right is if we form a government that we are both a part of and those laws will instead assert this right.  

Why wouldn't you take up aggression if someone was doing something harmful? It could be as simple as boycotting their products and encouraging others to do so (they even have apps for that now), taking them to court, or outright violence against their person and property. Hit them in their checkbook, even if it means they have to spend a lot more on beefed up security.
And also, what do you do if the laws do NOT asset that right? For instance, what if a law states that only a certain amount of arsenic is allowed to be leached into the surrounding water, but that level is way too high, and is toxic to you and your plants? Or a law says that the fine needed to pay for cleanup of a spill is actually way too little to actually cover the costs of the spill cleanup, or to be punitive enough to make the company try to stop spilling? In both cases the entity doing the harm is well within their legal rights, and you are forced to agree to it. (FYI, the later happened with the BP oil spill, where BP agreed to pay a fine in exchange from being protected from being sued again, but the fine they paid is way less than what it is costing to clean up the gulf)

In the end, this is exactly where I see the biggest flaw in NAP & AnCap as an extension.  It all sounds nice on paper but in the end, human nature does not work in this way and with that is just sounds like a system to give cover for people who want to externalize their impact and not give just recourse against them.

I think I have just shown that it's actually the other way around. People who want to externalize their impact usually have professional people who help write laws to make their impacts legal, thus binding those who get harmed to just accept it, whereas, without the government being there with tax payer funded police and military, there would be nothing to prevent an angry mob from storming the place and taking it out of commission, laws be damned.

[myrkul]

Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?

So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive.

No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.

ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?

Because any right, in order to be a right, must be universal. Therefore, either everyone has a right to be aggressive, or nobody has. With me so far?

ok sure you can define any word you like any way you like for the sake of this discussion lets define rights in such a manner that they necessarily apply to everyone, no harm in that at all.

Good, because that's the definition that the dictionary uses, too.

Now, as to the origin, there are several ways to look at it: Rights could come from:
1) An inherent nature of the human condition, such as is often used to justify self-ownership: You have the first, best claim on your body, therefore you own it.
2) An external creator, with a higher authority than all others, such as the founders of the United States used to explain their conception of rights: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. or
3) An agreement, which must be reciprocal in nature, that both participants in an interaction have a certain right, and thus it should be respected: By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well.

Note that all three of these require that a right, in order to be considered a right, must be universal: Everyone here has the original claim to their body, as we're all human (I assume). Everyone has the same Creator, or they don't. If you deny a right, then you can not claim it for yourself... the murderer can hardly expect to have his right to life respected, after denying the right to life by killing someone.

But this is all just a side-track. You've already agreed that rights need to be universal, regardless of their origin. So, if anyone has the right to aggress, then everyone does. The state, however, disagrees. They pass multiple laws which indicate that people do not have right to aggress: laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. But then they empower agents to do just that: rape, murder, and steal. So, are they violating the criminals' rights, or ours?

[Anon136]

i just find debate with other libertarians to be so much more stimulating than with people like firstassent so i nit pick and look for points of contention.

Thank you. I definitely still need that, as I'm still forming my own views on all this.

if you are interested, my favorite libertarian author, an outspoken consequentialist and great alternative to stefan molyneux's deontology is david d friedman. Where stefan will just deflect by saying "technical specifics dont matter" or "try explaining a tractor to people 300 years ago" david will actually lay out technical specifics in laborious detail, david will actually explain the tractor. His book the machinery of freedom single handedly changed me from a minarchist to an anarchist, this being after i had had been listening to stefan for long time.

if you do decide to check out the machinery of freedom its free on the web. the book is broken into 3 parts, i recommend starting with part three and i would ask that you only stick with it for atleast 2 chapters "what is anarchy, what is government" and "police courts and laws on the market" then after that only keep reading if you are hooked =).

[myrkul]

If you do decide to check out the machinery of freedom its free on the web.

In fact, here it is... https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_-_David_D_Friedman.epub

If you prefer PDF, I believe I can provide that as well.

[Anon136]

Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?

So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive.

No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.

ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?

Because any right, in order to be a right, must be universal. Therefore, either everyone has a right to be aggressive, or nobody has. With me so far?

ok sure you can define any word you like any way you like for the sake of this discussion lets define rights in such a manner that they necessarily apply to everyone, no harm in that at all.

Good, because that's the definition that the dictionary uses, too.

Now, as to the origin, there are several ways to look at it: Rights could come from:
1) An inherent nature of the human condition, such as is often used to justify self-ownership: You have the first, best claim on your body, therefore you own it.
2) An external creator, with a higher authority than all others, such as the founders of the United States used to explain their conception of rights: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. or
3) An agreement, which must be reciprocal in nature, that both participants in an interaction have a certain right, and thus it should be respected: By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well.

Note that all three of these require that a right, in order to be considered a right, must be universal: Everyone here has the original claim to their body, as we're all human (I assume). Everyone has the same Creator, or they don't. If you deny a right, then you can not claim it for yourself... the murderer can hardly expect to have his right to life respected, after denying the right to life by killing someone.

But this is all just a side-track. You've already agreed that rights need to be universal, regardless of their origin. So, if anyone has the right to aggress, then everyone does. The state, however, disagrees. They pass multiple laws which indicate that people do not have right to aggress: laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. But then they empower agents to do just that: rape, murder, and steal. So, are they violating the criminals' rights, or ours?

Ok but *why* does being born into a body constitute legitimate acquisition of that body? Maybe bob believes that bob owns everyones body. Specifically why is your theory right and bobs theory wrong? I know we are venturing into the territory of epistemology but i dont see there as being an answer to this question. Fortunately i dont think the question its self is very important. I value peaceful resolutions to conflicts and self ownership leads to peaceful resolutions to conflicts. Whether it is objectively the case that peacefully resolving conflicts is preferable is not a concern to me, all that matters to me is that I prefer it. when getting into a debate with someone like firstassent I just ask do you value peaceful society? if he says yes than i can discuss what means (libertarianism) will lead to that outcome and then the conversation shifts into the realm of objectivity. If he does not value a peaceful society than you can just disengage and take comfort in the fact that he is in the super-minority, there is no need to prove that he is "wrong" in not preferring peace to violence.

if you could demonstrate the existence of a god then i might accept number 2.

"An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.

"By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well." not at all. Imagine that i am with a person who i do not believe has a right to be alive, i may avoid killing him for many reasons, maybe i would go to jail if i killed him or maybe i believe that he could draw his gun faster than i could draw mine and that i do not wish to die. Maybe im a pacifist who would like for someone else to kill him but am unwilling to kill him myself for philosophical reasons.

[Dalkore]

"An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.

"By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well." not at all. Imagine that i am with a person who i do not believe has a right to be alive, i may avoid killing him for many reasons, maybe i would go to jail if i killed him or maybe i believe that he could draw his gun faster than i could draw mine and that i do not wish to die. Maybe im a pacifist who would like for someone else to kill him but am unwilling to kill him myself for philosophical reasons.

So, you accept that there are people somewhere on the planet that have the right to take your life? Strange.

Explain how you get to the point where you can be with a "person who you do not believe has a right to be alive", without that person having already forfeited his rights by ignoring the rights of someone else.

What he may be eluding to, is that you only have a right as much as you can defend it with force.  The law of nature has some of these elements in it.

[myrkul]

Ok but *why* does being born into a body constitute legitimate acquisition of that body? Maybe bob believes that bob owns everyones body. Specifically why is your theory right and bobs theory wrong?

I answered that in the example explanation. You have the first, best claim. Bob is wrong because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to expel me.

"An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.

Well, when you go into a restaurant, you don't explicitly agree to give them money for a delicious burger, and they don't explicitly agree to give you a delicious burger for your money. But when you purchase a burger, and it is not up to your standards, you do go back (or call them, if you've left) and get a better burger, or your money back.

Many of these agreements are exactly this sort of "understood" agreement. It doesn't matter why you respect his right to life, for instance, that you do is sufficient.

[myrkul]

Humans interact with other humans. There is a sequence of events. If, during these interactions, one of the humans uses force prior to the other, he accepts force as a viable means of interaction and can not complain when force is used upon him.

+1

[myrkul]

In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?

It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.

[myrkul]

In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?

It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but in both free-will and non-free-will world views, it seems that initiation of force and responses to force cannot logically co-exist. It's either one or the other. Thus, a logically consistent and 'correct' interpretation is not possible. Besides, I thought you were a big believer in an objectivist universe -- either free will objectively exists, or it doesn't. Which one is it?

You're playing your word games again. You would not have made your statement if I had not made mine. It is in response to it. To demonstrate, refute the points Holliday will make when he next responds to this thread. But do it before he does.

[Rassah]

In the absence of other laws, it would be very important to be very clear about the exact meaning of the NAP. What if one person interprets it differently from another?

It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier, but in both free-will and non-free-will world views, it seems that initiation of force and responses to force cannot logically co-exist. It's either one or the other. Thus, a logically consistent and 'correct' interpretation is not possible. Besides, I thought you were a big believer in an objectivist universe -- either free will objectively exists, or it doesn't. Which one is it?

On the other hand, maybe only some people have free will, while others don't? This seems plausible, especially if the practical consequences aren't all that significant. However, that would mean that both camps would have correct yet conflicting meanings for 'aggression' and 'initiation of force'. Not a great start for a principle that's supposed to avoid conflict!

You are making up a fake world with very restrictive rules, and then saying that the NAP cannot exist in such a world. I would agree with you. But what you described isn't the real world that we live in, so it's rather irrelevant.

Also, it seems you are implying NAP is some strange scenario where nothing happens while no one messes with each other's stuff, but as soon as someone does, guns go blazing. That's also not how the real world works. If your neighbor messes up your yard or shoves you while passing by you, you don't immediately get into a brawl or call the police, you figure out what happened, why, and what can be done to resolve it. People practice NAP every day of their lives. We just propose extending it to the rest of the government.