What's so special about the NAP?

[fergalish]

I'm talking about "true libertarianism" in which even the NAP is rescinded. You are truly free to do whatever you want. Rescinding laws until you're left with only the NAP is arbitrary. Give me a good logical argument why libertarians insist on maintaining a NAP, and yet insist on rescinding lots of other laws.  Or, alternatively, why libertarians insist on creating the NAP, yet refuse to create other laws.

You seem to be confusing laws with a principle

Sorry, I've been offline for a while. This is a good post, different from the pro- and anti-NAP flame war currently going on.  Yes, cryptoanarcist, perhaps I did.  But then, if NAP is merely a principle, what is its basis?  Is it a principle of morality?  Of utility? Or maybe religious? An economic principle perhaps?  But if it's any of these, then it is necessarily subjective, and hence it is not universal (in the sense not all humans will consider it obviously useful/good/ideal). As such, it cannot possibly form the basis of a society composed of members with different or competing goals, morals, religions, racial features,..... and so on.

---

As for the pro/anti NAP flame war, I would say this: two people (say, A & B, not adhering to the NAP, and with no contract ever formed between them) claim ownership of some property. Here is the debate:

Suppose he thinks its his house? Wouldn't it simply be better to ignore the NAP so at least there's no confusion - possession would equal ownership? Or alternatively introduce a complex legal system with a land registry where the true owner is listed. What exactly does NAP solve in this situation?

AnCap doesn't preclude a land registry. The NAP solves, in this case, who is in the "wrong". If he thinks it is his house, and the original possessor also thinks it is his house, we need only look at who was the aggressor. This will most likely turn out to be the person who moved in.

So, tell me, who is the "we" in your reply? And why would the aggressor be the one who moved in?  Perhaps the aggressor might be the one who refuses to move out.  Is NAP really based on such arbitrary 'gut feelings'? Is the "we" you and your friends, me and my friends, or A's friends, or B's friends?  Is it perhaps a committee formed by all the NAP-abiding neighbourhood?  Is it some arbitrary vigilante group?  Assume neither A nor B, not adhering to the NAP, have not hired any defense contractor.  Or, maybe, suppose the land-registry to which A adheres says the property is his, while B's land registry says otherwise.

We've debated on this issue before - NAP is useless at resolving conflicts which are not governed by some contract and for which no court of arbitration is stipulated a priori.  Even worse, since people's interpretation of "violence" is different, then it is completely possible that a meeting between two people, even adhering to NAP, will descend to violence.  See this thread where Moonshadow proposed a non-arbitrary definition of "acceptable weaponry" to which everyone might agree: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.msg547444#msg547444   I won't quote the message here because it's too long, but suffice it to say that I most emphatically do not agree.  (To cut a long story short I never replied 'cos I was out of town for a while, and the thread grew insanely after that). His definition is just as arbitrary as others previously posted in that thread, so it would be enough for Moonshadow, a NAPster, carrying his automatic assault rifle, to encounter another NAPster who considers possession of such a weapon to be a threat of violence and so two sworn NAPsters end up fighting or shooting in the street.  (for those interested, I suggest reading that thread. It's *very* entertaining, but *very very* long)

This is my last word on the pro/anti NAP debate.  In this thread I really wanted to find out my libertarians adore the NAP so much - why not get rid of it, and let everyone have true liberty.  No satisfactory replies yet, but I see I have about 100 posts to read through.

[1713414681]

1713414681

[1713414681]

1713414681

[myrkul]

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

Logical conclusion:  that no one can lead anything put the smallest of groups, if not single individuals - at that point would everyone be their own leader?

“I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”
       Henry David Thoreau

And what area is smaller than your own self? Govern yourself, and no other.

So, tell me, who is the "we" in your reply? And why would the aggressor be the one who moved in?  Perhaps the aggressor might be the one who refuses to move out.  Is NAP really based on such arbitrary 'gut feelings'? Is the "we" you and your friends, me and my friends, or A's friends, or B's friends?  Is it perhaps a committee formed by all the NAP-abiding neighbourhood?  Is it some arbitrary vigilante group?  Assume neither A nor B, not adhering to the NAP, have not hired any defense contractor.  Or, maybe, suppose the land-registry to which A adheres says the property is his, while B's land registry says otherwise.

We've debated on this issue before - NAP is useless at resolving conflicts which are not governed by some contract and for which no court of arbitration is stipulated a priori. 

The "we" is whoever is doing the deciding.

A principle does not decide an issue. it guides the people doing the deciding. The Non-aggression principle says that nobody has the right to initiate force on another person. That in itself -you're right, there- does nothing to decide a disagreement, but it does help guide those who are doing the deciding, and those who need the disagreement settled. It says that a peaceful resolution is preferable to a violent one. If there is no prior agreement, following the NAP will lead the disagreeing parties to seek a peaceful resolution rather than a violent one.

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...
Are you saying you're a "hardcore statist"?

I'm a hardcore realist.  If the state is the best way to deliver something, its great.  If Fedex is a better option, its great.  The important thing is that the delivery get made in the best way possible.

Well, my rant was that the British are hardcore statists, and made no reference to you, yet you volunteered that you're not British, implying that you're a hardcore statist.

Not sure how you missed that.

[fergalish]

If you oppose the NAP, please explain the rational basis by which you distinguish between those permitted to act aggressively and those prohibited from doing so.

This is *exactly* what I'm asking too.  Hypothesis: I oppose the NAP and propose instead that there be *no* limitation whatsoever on people's behavior; EVERYBODY is permitted to act aggressively at all times; only instincts of self-preservation will prevent them from doing so. How is this different from the NAP?

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.

In fairness to myrkul, this does sound a bit similar to Freenet's justification - if you like freedom-of-expression use freenet, but don't complain about expressions you don't like. It is not inconsistent, but then I wonder how myrkul would behave when his locality decides that people with red hair may not own property. And before you say that's preposterous, just substitute "locality" for "local defense contractor" and substitute "red hair" for "sunni" or "black".

Slavery is economically unfeasible.

Slavery has been economically feasible for millenia, and will still be economically feasible for millenia to come, or at least until rubber dolls become more appealing to men than the real thing.

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?

Manufacturing companies will stop installing them in order to cut corners.  Your argument that people's own self-interest will compel them to insist that the manufacturers continue to install seatbelts may be correct, but that argument fails if you consider crumple zones that protect pedestrians in an impact.

“I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”
       Henry David Thoreau

I haven't read this, but it seems as though Thoreau referred to a government which enacts a minimum set of laws; not to a geographically minimal government.

The "we" is whoever is doing the deciding.

So, if no court of arbitration is specified and the two parties cannot agree to one, then who does the deciding?  Who is "we" when not explicitly defined?  Just so you can't avoid answering again, please begin your answer with: "When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: ".  In the event you are unable to define this, then how do you suggest the conflict be resolved?

[myrkul]

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.

In fairness to myrkul, this does sound a bit similar to Freenet's justification - if you like freedom-of-expression use freenet, but don't complain about expressions you don't like. It is not inconsistent, but then I wonder how myrkul would behave when his locality decides that people with red hair may not own property. And before you say that's preposterous, just substitute "locality" for "local defense contractor" and substitute "red hair" for "sunni" or "black".

It would be better to re-word it as "Local defense contractor will not defend clients with red hair" The obvious response, to an entrepreneur, is to open up RedDefense, a defense company that caters to the red-heads who are refused service by the first company. The rest is as I explained in the post you quoted.

Slavery is economically unfeasible.

Slavery has been economically feasible for millenia, and will still be economically feasible for millenia to come, or at least until rubber dolls become more appealing to men than the real thing.

This is a fine point, and unfortunately, I do not have an economic argument that refutes it. But, of course, I was, originally, referring to slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the civil war, not sex-slavery. I would, however, point out that sex-slavery is aggression against the women so used, and so would not be viewed as legitimate in a NAP-following society. Defense of the women against their captors would be legitimate, and probably frequent.

How, exactly, will not having seat belt laws harm those people who want seat belt laws?

Manufacturing companies will stop installing them in order to cut corners.  Your argument that people's own self-interest will compel them to insist that the manufacturers continue to install seatbelts may be correct, but that argument fails if you consider crumple zones that protect pedestrians in an impact.

Crumple zones, if they indeed protect pedestrians, reduce the liability of the driver in the event that they strike a pedestrian. A car with such a safety feature would have lower insurance rates, and thus, be more popular.

“I heartily accept the motto, — ‘That government is best which governs least.’”
       Henry David Thoreau

I haven't read this, but it seems as though Thoreau referred to a government which enacts a minimum set of laws; not to a geographically minimal government.

You're right, he wasn't. But it can be taken either way, and results in the same effect: a government with no laws, with only you deciding what is good and what is not for you. The advantage of viewing it in this way, however, is that you view yourself as a government unto yourself, and choose laws that result in peaceful dealings with other governments.

The "we" is whoever is doing the deciding.

So, if no court of arbitration is specified and the two parties cannot agree to one, then who does the deciding?  Who is "we" when not explicitly defined?  Just so you can't avoid answering again, please begin your answer with: "When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: ".  In the event you are unable to define this, then how do you suggest the conflict be resolved?

There is no simple answer to this. I'll do my best, though:
When the court of arbitration is not explicitly defined, and the two parties cannot agree to one, the person(s) doing the deciding shall be: those that the people the two parties have chosen decide upon.

In other words, like my footy example above, each side picks a representative. The representatives, then, come to an agreement as to who will ultimately decide.

[JoelKatz]

Mr. Ybarra got a lot of positives by climbing and kayaking. How many positives did Billy get from not wearing a seat belt?

The beauty of living in a free society is that I don't have to justify my climbing, kayaking, smoking, or not wearing a seat belt. I can do it if I choose to. Those who argue against a free society don't seem to get this. Billy doesn't have to justify his choices to you. The disagreement is entirely over who makes the decision, not what decision is the right one.

[nybble41]

If you oppose the NAP, please explain the rational basis by which you distinguish between those permitted to act aggressively and those prohibited from doing so.

This is *exactly* what I'm asking too.  Hypothesis: I oppose the NAP and propose instead that there be *no* limitation whatsoever on people's behavior; EVERYBODY is permitted to act aggressively at all times; only instincts of self-preservation will prevent them from doing so. How is this different from the NAP?

A society where aggression is universally permitted is compatible with the NAP, in that it clearly would permit the self-defense / punishment for aggression which the NAP says is justified, albeit labeled as "counter-aggression" rather than "defense". It is not necessarily compliant with the NAP, though those "instincts of self-preservation" you refer to, along with the general social tendencies bred into the human race, would probably bring it fairly close.

A society isn't incompatible with the NAP until you start saying that some people should (morally/ethically/legally) be able to get away with practicing aggression without fear of reprisal, and the system you described does nothing of the sort. Abiding by the NAP then becomes a matter of individual choice. On the whole, as a straightforward application of the Golden Rule, it works out better for each individual to avoid initiating coercion against non-aggressors (i.e. follow the NAP), and to join together to defend others against aggression wherever it does occur (i.e. help to enforce the NAP).

The critical question is whether the same rules apply to everyone, or whether some individuals, for whatever reason, are permitted to act aggressively without opposition from the group. If the society treats aggression identically regardless of the source, it complies with the NAP; otherwise, if the society approves of aggression by some and not others, then the NAP is violated.

[FirstAscent]

Mr. Ybarra got a lot of positives by climbing and kayaking. How many positives did Billy get from not wearing a seat belt?

The beauty of living in a free society is that I don't have to justify my climbing, kayaking, smoking, or not wearing a seat belt. I can do it if I choose to. Those who argue against a free society don't seem to get this. Billy doesn't have to justify his choices to you. The disagreement is entirely over who makes the decision, not what decision is the right one.

Question:

Consider the scenario where in a society of many thousands (or millions), one in a hundred individuals engage in activity X on their property that goes undiscovered. Let's assume that activity X, on occasion leads to event Y, which hurts people.

Let's continue to assume that activity X continues to go undiscovered almost all the time.

Now, let's assume that there are ways to limit the amount of activity X through regulation or laws, without actually violating a person's privacy - i.e search and seizure. What is your opinion on this matter?

[myrkul]

What is your opinion on this matter?

Event Y happens, restitution is paid, everyone goes away, not necessarily happy, but at least as satisfied as possible, considering that Event Y did happen, and people did get hurt.

[FirstAscent]

What is your opinion on this matter?

Event Y happens, restitution is paid, everyone goes away, not necessarily happy, but at least as satisfied as possible, considering that Event Y did happen, and people did get hurt.

I kind of meant that people died. Statistically, we know there are others doing activity X, and sooner or later, another event Y will happen.

[myrkul]

What is your opinion on this matter?

Event Y happens, restitution is paid, everyone goes away, not necessarily happy, but at least as satisfied as possible, considering that Event Y did happen, and people did get hurt.

I kind of meant that people died. Statistically, we know there are others doing activity X, and sooner or later, another event Y will happen.

The answer doesn't change, just the amount of restitution.

[FirstAscent]

What is your opinion on this matter?

Event Y happens, restitution is paid, everyone goes away, not necessarily happy, but at least as satisfied as possible, considering that Event Y did happen, and people did get hurt.

I kind of meant that people died. Statistically, we know there are others doing activity X, and sooner or later, another event Y will happen.

The answer doesn't change, just the amount of restitution.

How do the victims who have no next of kin receive restitution? Would it not be better to try and prevent Y type events? What if most of society deems activity X to be unnecessary?

[myrkul]

How do the victims who have no next of kin receive restitution?

Well, since you have now specified that Event Y is lethal, the victims don't receive restitution anyway. Those who are harmed by the death of the victim do. If you can find someone whom nobody is harmed by their death, I'd be very surprised indeed.

Would it not be better to try and prevent Y type events?

To be sure. A high enough restitution cost would make safety measures to reduce the chances of Event Y happening more cost effective. If the restitution cost is high enough, it might even stop Activity X, as "too risky".

What if most of society deems activity X to be unnecessary?

Just as Joel stated, that is irrelevant.

[Hawker]

I'm doing end of day accounts and heading out.  If I summarise where I think we have got to:
1. People use laws to set a standard so that they don't have to use willpower themselves.  Social security, the NHS and seat belt laws are examples of this.
2. Evidence suggests that 50% of people actually need the laws; they don't save, buy insurance or wear seat belts otherwise.
3. They enthusiastically vote for politicians who create these laws.
4. Usually,the rights to do this is inherited in much the same way property is inherited.
5. If you are saying that these rights are not valid, then no rights are valid.

I am not saying you agree with all this but at least you understand one of the reasons why people vote the way they do.

My question to you is: what is the problem that you want to solve?  The system works - what reason do you have for wanting a reset ?

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not. 

[myrkul]

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

[FirstAscent]

I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine.

Then why would you be an advocate of the NAP, where the rich will clearly exert control over those who have much less money?

[JoelKatz]

Question:

Consider the scenario where in a society of many thousands (or millions), one in a hundred individuals engage in activity X on their property that goes undiscovered. Let's assume that activity X, on occasion leads to event Y, which hurts people.

Let's continue to assume that activity X continues to go undiscovered almost all the time.

Now, let's assume that there are ways to limit the amount of activity X through regulation or laws, without actually violating a person's privacy - i.e search and seizure. What is your opinion on this matter?

It's really hard to give an answer without specifics. The key issues are the mechanism by which it hurts people, the amount of harm it does, and whether the activity is within the scope of the moral authority of the people who engage in it.

How do the victims who have no next of kin receive restitution?

That depends on the mechanism of harm. Hypothetically, if the action is something like making a chemical on your own property that can blow up and hurt/kill your neighbors, then they can sue for the damages. Society could require insurance as a pre-condition to engaging in behavior that poses risk to others.

Would it not be better to try and prevent Y type events?

There's no way to know. The information necessary to make this judgment generally doesn't exist.

What if most of society deems activity X to be unnecessary?

Then most of society will refrain from activity X and minimize the harm done. Presumably, those who do it deem its benefits to exceed its harms. The key thing is to make sure their calculation includes all the harms.

[Hawker]

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

That's a very heart-felt, if inaccurate, response.  But its avoiding the question.  What right do you have to take her voting rights off Paris Hilton ?  And do I have the same right to take her property off her?  Both rights are legal creations of US law and as such both have equal standing don't they?

[FirstAscent]

I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine.

Then why would you be an advocate of the NAP, where the rich will clearly exert control over those who have much less money?

Myrkul,

Please answer.

[myrkul]

The right for you to choose your leader is valid. The right for you to choose my leader is not. It really is that simple.

We've been through this; Paris Hilton has the right to a gazillion dollars and the right to vote.  You have no rational basis to say that one right is "valid" and another is not.  

Yes, we have. I don't give a flying shit how much money Paris Hilton has. Nothing gives her the right to say what I can or cannot do with mine. I do not try to tell her what to do with hers.

That's a very heart-felt, if inaccurate, response.  But its avoiding the question.  What right do you have to take her voting rights off Paris Hilton ?  And do I have the same right to take her property off her?  Both rights are legal creations of US law and as such both have equal standing don't they?

No, they do not. I'm not taking the "voting rights" away from her, she can vote all she wants... for her leaders and her laws. Just not mine. The best part of a free market systems is that everything she votes for, she gets. Compare that to democracy, where she may not get what she votes for, for I may be in the majority, and disagree.