...

[NghtRppr]

There are two arguments for the non-aggression principle:

1. Violating the NAP has bad consequences.

2. Violating the NAP is immoral.

Since I'm not a consequentialist, I don't find the consequentialist argument convincing one way or the other.

As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong. That being said, I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim. If you are literally about to starve to death, steal some bread but be prepared to work it off. I doubt you'll have to steal though because I'll be glad to give you some of my bread. However, if you are dying because of liver failure, don't take my liver.

If you reject my opinion like I reject the opinions of those that wish to violate the NAP, we have irreconcilable differences. We can either try to coexist peacefully or we can go to war. There's nothing more to it than that.

[1713499080]

1713499080

[1713499080]

1713499080

[1713499080]

1713499080

[1713499080]

1713499080

[justusranvier]

As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf

[myrkul]

As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf

Good suggestion.

[Hawker]

Can I suggest you read "The Machinery of Freedom" by Friedman.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90846.0

It demolishes the idea that you can use the NAP as a basis for a society.  Since Friedman is a respected libertarian and the book was written in 1971, perhaps its time to move on from defending the NAP?  Its not like its needed for libertarianism.

[myrkul]

Can I suggest you read "The Machinery of Freedom" by Friedman.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90846.0

It demolishes the idea that you can use the NAP as a basis for a society.  Since Friedman is a respected libertarian and the book was written in 1971, perhaps its time to move on from defending the NAP?  Its not like its needed for libertarianism.

Other books have been written since, and proven him wrong. Patience, I'm getting to that.

[Hawker]

There are two arguments for the non-aggression principle:

1. Violating the NAP has bad consequences.

2. Violating the NAP is immoral.

Since I'm not a consequentialist, I don't find the consequentialist argument convincing one way or the other.

As for the argument from morality, all moral claims are opinions. They are preferences, nothing more. You can't say my opinion is wrong any more than I can say yours is wrong. That's because opinions aren't the kinds of things that can be right or wrong. That being said, I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim. If you are literally about to starve to death, steal some bread but be prepared to work it off. I doubt you'll have to steal though because I'll be glad to give you some of my bread. However, if you are dying because of liver failure, don't take my liver.

If you reject my opinion like I reject the opinions of those that wish to violate the NAP, we have irreconcilable differences. We can either try to coexist peacefully or we can go to war. There's nothing more to it than that.

Why are bad consequences are not a convincing argument? 

[myrkul]

I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim.

A society should be based on morals, but operated on practicalities, with a goal of achieving as close an approximation of the morals as possible. The morals that the NAP upholds are that it is never right to violate someone's rights. So in order to approach that goal, we should reduce rights violations as much as possible. That means that any interaction which can be entirely voluntary, should be. In the case of a loaf of bread, It would be preferable to ask (as you note), rather than to steal. Further, any interactions which are in violation of the NAP should be compensated, to acknowledge that you have done wrong. If you do steal the loaf of bread, you will have to compensate the person you stole the bread from. In the ordinary course of life, there are very few interactions that cannot be entirely voluntary, and most of them are considered crimes. In fact, I can not, at this time, think of any.

[Hawker]

I reject any opinion that violating the NAP is moral, outside of immediate life threatening situations when your actions don't threaten the life of another person and you also compensate the victim.

A society should be based on morals, but operated on practicalities, with a goal of achieving as close an approximation of the morals as possible. The morals that the NAP upholds are that it is never right to violate someone's rights. So in order to approach that goal, we should reduce rights violations as much as possible. That means that any interaction which can be entirely voluntary, should be. In the case of a loaf of bread, It would be preferable to ask (as you note), rather than to steal. Further, any interactions which are in violation of the NAP should be compensated, to acknowledge that you have done wrong. If you do steal the loaf of bread, you will have to compensate the person you stole the bread from. In the ordinary course of life, there are very few interactions that cannot be entirely voluntary, and most of them are considered crimes. In fact, I can not, at this time, think of any.

The problem arise when what you regard as moral is regarded by others as an infringement of their rights.  For example, racial discrimination violates the right to equal treatment.  You say that not allowing racial discrimination violates your property rights.  At some point a choice has to be made about what rights are more important and the NAP is no real help with that.

[NghtRppr]

I've read Machinery of Freedom a couple of times. It's worth it for the quotes alone. I don't think UPB is worth reading.

[Hawker]

I've read Machinery of Freedom a couple of times. It's worth it for the quotes alone. I don't think UPB is worth reading.

It is well written and has a great tone doesn't it You get the feeling that an evening in a bar with Freidman would be fun even if politics never got discussed. 

[justusranvier]

I don't think UPB is worth reading.

That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?

[dancupid]

Aggression is a matter of situation - morality doesn't come into it.
Behavior is innate, and the most pacifistic person will find themselves abusing Abu Ghraib prisoners quite willingly if they happen to be in that situation. They will contribute to genocide if they happen to be in a situation of genocide. And they will justify their actions philosophically and morally.
A principal is just a principal, and human behaviour has never been controlled by principal. It's always been informed by our innate biology, which is situational.

[Matthew N. Wright]

If any one of you faggots has a problem with the Non-aggression principle, I'm gonna fuck you up!  

[NghtRppr]

That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?

I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.

I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?

[justusranvier]

I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.

I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?

[Matthew N. Wright]

That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?

I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.

I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?

Atlas, is that you?

[NghtRppr]

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?

Exactly? No. If you get Stefan Molyneux here to make his argument or if you'd like to do it in his stead, I'm more than willing to debate.

[FirstAscent]

That's very interesting. What was the flaw that you discovered with his reasoning?

I never finished it. I started reading it, couldn't make much sense of it and gave up. Nobody else has been able to give me a good summary of the argument.

I also notice that nobody has attacked my argument head on so I'm guessing they can't?

Atlas, is that you?

It's bitcoin2cash.

[NghtRppr]

Atlas, is that you?

Read War and Peace, On the Nature of Physical Laws and Fifty Shades of Gray to obtain your answer.

[FirstAscent]

Atlas, is that you?

Read War and Peace, On the Nature of Physical Laws and Fifty Shades of Gray to obtain your answer.

Or one could just read my last post.