Objections to the non-aggression principle

[Luther]

@Fizzgig: Just because you cannot personally think of how something might be done, doesn't make it impossible. Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

[1714031847]

1714031847

[1714031847]

1714031847

[1714031847]

1714031847

[Fizzgig]

Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

Exactly.

The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.

If a man is enslaved, should I offer up an alternative before I condemn slavery? The fundamental building block of any government is a monopoly of force, how can you build anything stable from that?

[Hawker]

Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

Exactly.

The problem is that you don't offer an alternative that is better.

If a man is enslaved, should I offer up an alternative before I condemn slavery? The fundamental building block of any government is a monopoly of force, how can you build anything stable from that?

What an odd question!  Here we are in a peaceful stable set of societies and you are asking how we can build a stable society.  No need - its been done and we like it.  The idea of forums like this is that you offer an improvement.

[Luther]

Any con man knows how to manipulate social power structures.

Exactly.

So what's your point, exactly? Any time you get 3 or more people together, you get a power structure. To get rid of government, you'd have to ban nearly all social interactions.

The fundamental building block of any government is a monopoly of force, how can you build anything stable from that?

If the government had a monopoly on force, it would be impossible for anyone to commit illegal violence. So by your definition, we already live in an anarchy.

I contend that government is built on the need for monopolized services. The source of its seemingly disproportionate power is the fact that there are people who are willing to publicly risk their lives to enforce its polocies. People like that can easily whoop anything you can establish with just property rights and contracts.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I contend that government is built on the need for monopolized services. The source of its seemingly disproportionate power is the fact that there are people who are willing to publicly risk their lives to enforce its polocies. People like that can easily whoop anything you can establish with just property rights and contracts.

There you have the core fault in the stateless society argument.  Once you come to deal with people who are willing to die for their beliefs, you need a state to protect you.  Since you know these people are out there, the best thing is to work for a state that respects the rights of people of all kinds.

[nybble41]

Here we are in a peaceful stable set of societies and you are asking how we can build a stable society.

The whole point is that current societies are neither peaceful nor stable. The law is in constant flux, riddled with special cases and loopholes, and driven by political expediency and the whims of special-interest groups. Aggression of all forms--theft, fraud, assault, wrongful imprisonment, even murder--is not only widespread, but systemic.

Government is force. That is its defining characteristic. If it did not practice aggression it would not be a government. There is no such thing as a peaceful society which endorses the use of force against non-aggressors. It may prove impossible in practice to have a peaceful society in the absence of government, but one thing is for sure: you will never have a peaceful society with government.

[Hunterbunter]

Is there really a difference, save for scale and different names, between government of a country and government of a private property? In both cases, anyone who uses your land does so under your rules, and it is in your benefit to remove disturbers of the peace for the sake of other tenants, to avoid good tenant flight (although good is entirely subjective, of course).

Either taxes or rent pay for the maintenance of the property, tenant services, and your time in governing (managing).

Government owned the country before you were born. The landlord bought the house before you did. Both defend them, usually to someone's death. It also helps that human's need land to survive for very long, making ownership the win on many counts.

If you get enough people to support your cause, and you can overwhelm defenses of either state; you can take over either the government or a private property.

It sounds to me many libertarians misunderstand this difference in scale. Smaller doses of private owners watching their own fences will still have government of that property, as they will have their own rules, and what you're really asking for is to be in charge of the country...but have a billion little countries. Wouldn't it be lovely paying a billion different tariffs when you want to ship something from NY to LA.

How many libertarians are against the idea of ownership?

[Hawker]

Here we are in a peaceful stable set of societies and you are asking how we can build a stable society.

The whole point is that current societies are neither peaceful nor stable. The law is in constant flux, riddled with special cases and loopholes, and driven by political expediency and the whims of special-interest groups. Aggression of all forms--theft, fraud, assault, wrongful imprisonment, even murder--is not only widespread, but systemic.

Government is force. That is its defining characteristic. If it did not practice aggression it would not be a government. There is no such thing as a peaceful society which endorses the use of force against non-aggressors. It may prove impossible in practice to have a peaceful society in the absence of government, but one thing is for sure: you will never have a peaceful society with government.

Its nice to debate theories but you can't invent you own facts.  Societies that have phenomenally low violence rates, constitutions that are ancient and that are well established democracies are peaceful and stable.

[Fizzgig]

I think a very important point to understand about the human condition is that we are animals seeking to maximize our stuff. Generally, the best way to maximize your own stuff is by interacting with other people in a voluntary manner. However, situations occur where the best way to maximize your stuff is by cheating others out of their stuff. The NAP describes a way for people to interact so that risk is contained, competition is encouraged (failure is common), and barriers to entry are low.

The introduction of an all-powerful entity into an ecosystem does nothing to keep risk contained, encourage competition, or keep barriers to entry low. All it does is attract powerful players looking to bend this all-powerful entity to their own will (like when regulation is passed which benefits the established businesses over future start-ups).

Bailing out gigantic institutions which can kill our economy demonstrates a lack of redundancy, an abundance of offloaded risk, and a lack of competition.

Systems in nature have certain characteristics in common: redundancy, mutation, and selection for good reason...they're sustainable, yo.

And yes, I am saying that our current system is not sustainable. I can see how it would be much harder to entertain the idea of the NAP if you believe this system can continue. The dollar is a ponzi scheme and will collapse into rubble, dust, and other stuff.

[Hawker]

I think a very important point to understand about the human condition is that we are animals seeking to maximize our stuff. Generally, the best way to maximize your own stuff is by interacting with other people in a voluntary manner. ...snip...

That's only true in a state with a proper legal system.  Outside of a state structure, people like Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun found the best way to maximise their stuff.

I'm not disagreeing that the NAP is morally nicer but history tells us that if there is no restriction, its the real bastards who do well and its the decent people who end up as peons.