What's so special about the NAP?

[FirstAscent]

When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence.

Lets agree not to do that.  If you are for allowing racial discrimination and you are for allowing people to be killed by mobs without the benefit of a trial, its very clear what type of society you are comfortable with. 

I support property rights and the right of private citizens to defend themselves and others. Make of that what you will. Using inflammatory language doesn't suddenly make my position evil. As I said, I'm done arguing this with you. Continue, and I will cease discussing anything with you.

Your proposal is a return to the good old days of legal racial discrimination and to allowing lynching.  That is evil - no inflammatory language is needed.

Inflammatory language highlighted for your reading pleasure. Good bye, Hawker.

Racial discrimination and lynching are what you want to allow.  That is a simple matter of fact supported by your posting history.

If that is inflammatory to you, perhaps you need to re-think what you stand for?

He is a sensitive fellow.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Inflammatory language highlighted for your reading pleasure. Good bye, Hawker.

Racial discrimination and lynching are what you want to allow.  That is a simple matter of fact supported by your posting history.

If that is inflammatory to you, perhaps you need to re-think what you stand for?

He is a sensitive fellow.

Yeah, myrkul has already said that discrimination never did blacks any harm.  I'm not sure if he is an out and out racist that is afraid to be known as such or just an immature guy who hasn't thought things through.  Either way, his ideal society seems to be based on Jim Crow.

EDIT: fixed the damn type.  Freudian slip

[FirstAscent]

... or just an immature guy who hasn't thought things true.

Funny. I believe you just made a typo, and yet it works! Because he's never thought things we say are true. He just can't accept all those little and big truths about the world that are inconvenient to his belief system.

The saddest thing of all, though, is his approach. He takes an ideal out of thin air, and then just insists beyond all reason that he can slap it across the world and make it magically work. I much prefer simply looking at all the problems in the world and all its complexity, and individually trying to tailor a solution to those problems that will work, long term.

[myrkul]

My final statement on the matter:

I dislike racial discrimination. In fact, I despise it. However, as a believer in the Non-Aggression Principle, I cannot find a way to enforce any restrictions against it without violating the bigot's rights by forcing him to do business with someone he does not want to. I am also a firm believer in negative rights. One can have a right to be free from something, for example coercion, but not a right to something, for example my property. If a person can be said to have a right to be free from racial discrimination, unfortunately enforcing that right would require that one aggress against others, violating their right to own their property and actions. The right to be free from coercion trumps the right to be free from discrimination, because to enforce the right to be free from discrimination would be to give them the right to someone's property.

The way to fix one rights violation is not with another, more egregious one, but by offering alternatives. If you feel so strongly that you would attempt to make it illegal, instead, why not put that effort to good use and supply the discriminated against with the service they are being denied? Not only do they get what they want, you make a profit on the deal, and the bigot loses money. If you set up shop directly across the street, or even next door to him, and consistently undercut his prices, you may even drive him out of business, without once violating the NAP.

Aggression is easy, violence is the quick solution. Non-aggression is harder, but ultimately more rewarding. By forcing him to do business with those he hates, you have not helped the bigot see the error of his ways, you have only given him cause to hate you, too. But by out-competing him by doing what he refuses to, you have shown him that your way is better, and he will either fail, or change his ways voluntarily. Now, which is the bigger win, holding a gun to a man's head and forcing him to deal with someone he hates, or getting him to do it willingly, with a smile on his face?

[benjamindees]

What the hell did you all do to this thread?

You separated off all discussion of the NAP and now you're talking about racism instead?

[Hawker]

What the hell did you all do to this thread?

You separated off all discussion of the NAP and now you're talking about racism instead?

They are one and the same.  A lot of people believe the NAP says that its wrong to stop racial discrimination.  Some believe it entitles mobs to lynch people. So any society based on the NAP is going to be based on segregation of races.

[myrkul]

So any society based on the NAP is going to be based on segregation of races.

That, right there, is straight-up ridiculous. That implies that you believe that the large majority of people would segregate, if allowed to. If this were true, segregation would still be legal, because laws outlawing it would not have passed.

[Hawker]

So any society based on the NAP is going to be based on segregation of races.

That, right there, is straight-up ridiculous. That implies that you believe that the large majority of people would segregate, if allowed to. If this were true, segregation would still be legal, because laws outlawing it would not have passed.

You understate the impact that returning to legal discrimination and lynchings would have.  If the consequence is a return to a segregated society, does that change where you stand? 

[myrkul]

If the consequence is a return to a segregated society, does that change where you stand? 

If society would self-segregate, in the absence of laws preventing it, then that indicates that those laws are oppressive, does it not?

This illustrates my point: Laws are nothing more than opinions, violently enforced.

[FirstAscent]

If the consequence is a return to a segregated society, does that change where you stand? 

If society would self-segregate, in the absence of laws preventing it, then that indicates that those laws are oppressive, does it not?

This illustrates my point: Laws are nothing more than opinions, violently enforced.

I think you're missing a point. It takes two individuals to mutually agree to self segregate. Nothing in today's society precludes that. When both parties don't want to mingle, they don't. Nobody is forcing anyone to not self segregate.

But in your society, you're forcing segregation. How? It's simple. In your society, the enforcers are the individuals within society. And thus, those individuals who insist on segregation and enforce it are doing just that.

And that's the problem with NAP in general.

[benjamindees]

This is basically an argument between a tiny minority imposing its will upon society "for their own good", versus individual freedom and responsibility.

Freedom allows for voluntary segregation, true, and that is what tends to happen in most societies.  But, if you want to argue extremes, then what you are arguing for is the equivalent of the Taliban.

And, as an American, I don't see anyone "forcing" segregation.  The only force I see, in American society at least, is on the part of the liberal Taliban, forcing integration.

[FirstAscent]

Consider the following story with two characters: Mike and Hawk.

Hawk owns an island in the south Pacific. It is his own private domain. He's the ultimate NAPster, free from any government. He recently met Mike, an aspiring NAPster. He invites Mike to come visit his island.

The two fellows sit on Hawk's veranda, sipping drinks and admiring the expanse of Hawk's beautiful island. A conversation ensues.

Hawk: "Why don't you stay here? I'll sell you a ten acre parcel on the south side of the island."

Mike: "Oh, I'd love that. I can live the NAP dream here."

Hawk: "Yes. There are some terms you must agree with though, as this is my island. Remember, I'm a NAPster true and true, and since this is my island, I make the rules."

Mike: "Uh, what are those?"

Hawk: "Well, when you buy that parcel of land from me, I'll grant you ownership rights, but they won't be like the ownership rights I have."

Mike: "Uhhh..."

Hawk: "When you buy the parcel, you'll have the right to sell it to someone else down the road. However, you'll have to pay me an annual fee while you own it based on my assessment of the land's value. Furthermore, any business you conduct on your property will be subject to various taxes and such."

Mike: "Hey, that doesn't sound right."

Hawk: "Oh, but it is. This is NAPism true and true. I own the island. I make the rules. However, I'll give you some freedoms above and beyond NAP. I'll invite others in to buy up parcels with the same rules. But, if you and they so choose, you and they can vote to change those rules I made, even though this is my fucking island."

[Hawker]

If the consequence is a return to a segregated society, does that change where you stand? 

If society would self-segregate, in the absence of laws preventing it, then that indicates that those laws are oppressive, does it not?

This illustrates my point: Laws are nothing more than opinions, violently enforced.

Society would also have slavery without laws preventing it.  Do you regard that law as oppressive too?

[myrkul]

Society would also have slavery without laws preventing it.  Do you regard that law as oppressive too?

No it wouldn't. Slavery is economically unfeasible. You're feeding, housing, and clothing people 12 months of the year, and as much as half of that time they are doing nothing. You have to have an entire industry devoted to keeping them from getting away. Compare that to a tractor, and suddenly a slave doesn't look so attractive anymore. The north's industrial capacity was turning slavery into an unprofitable business already.

To say nothing of the fact that slavery is abhorrent under the NAP, anyway.

[FirstAscent]

Society would also have slavery without laws preventing it.  Do you regard that law as oppressive too?

No it wouldn't. Slavery is economically unfeasible. You're feeding, housing, and clothing people 12 months of the year, and as much as half of that time they are doing nothing.

Oh, and an annual salary doesn't feed, house and clothe people 12 months of the year?

[Hawker]

Society would also have slavery without laws preventing it.  Do you regard that law as oppressive too?

No it wouldn't. Slavery is economically unfeasible. You're feeding, housing, and clothing people 12 months of the year, and as much as half of that time they are doing nothing. You have to have an entire industry devoted to keeping them from getting away. Compare that to a tractor, and suddenly a slave doesn't look so attractive anymore. The north's industrial capacity was turning slavery into an unprofitable business already.

To say nothing of the fact that slavery is abhorrent under the NAP, anyway.

Slavery may be abhorrent under the NAP but its not illegal is it? In your ideal world, the only protection from slavery is a defence agency.  If a someone is too poor or too stupid to have a defence agency, that's it.  Bang her on the head, chuck her in the back of your car and you have a slave, a pretty girl who will be on her back 7 days a week earning money for you.  Its a big business now; legalise it and it gets even bigger.  

So under your version of the NAP, you have racial discrimination, lynching, segregation and slavery.  

[myrkul]

Slavery may be abhorrent under the NAP but its not illegal is it? In your ideal world, the only protection from slavery is a defence agency.  If a someone is too poor or too stupid to have a defence agency, that's it.  Bang her on the head, chuck her in the back of your car and you have a slave, a pretty girl who will be on her back 7 days a week earning money for you.  Its a big business now; legalise it and it gets even bigger.  

So under your my version of the NAP, you have racial discrimination, lynching, segregation and slavery.  

Fixed that for you.

Laws don't stop lawbreakers from doing bad things.  You seem to ignore the fact that one of your "evils" ("lynching") would prevent the other, slavery. Your poor young lady would have, if nothing else, the protection of her community.

[Hawker]

Slavery may be abhorrent under the NAP but its not illegal is it? In your ideal world, the only protection from slavery is a defence agency.  If a someone is too poor or too stupid to have a defence agency, that's it.  Bang her on the head, chuck her in the back of your car and you have a slave, a pretty girl who will be on her back 7 days a week earning money for you.  Its a big business now; legalise it and it gets even bigger.  

So under your my version of the NAP, you have racial discrimination, lynching, segregation and slavery.  

Fixed that for you.

Laws don't stop lawbreakers from doing bad things.  You seem to ignore the fact that one of your "evils" ("lynching") would prevent the other, slavery. Your poor young lady would have, if nothing else, the protection of her community.

Laws do change people's behaviour.  Law sets a standard of behaviour that the majority of people aspire to.  That's why 35% of people wore seat belts before it was a legal requirement and 94% wear them afterwards.

And that's my problem with the NAP.  It sets the standard as low as it can be.

[myrkul]

And that's my problem with the NAP.  It sets the standard as low as it can be.

Ah. this is progress. Could you elaborate?

[benjamindees]

Enslaving someone qualifies as "aggression".  I'm not sure how you have convinced yourselves that "non-aggression" == "slavery".