-18 votes

I think the NAP is confusing people.

Fraud is not aggression.
Aggression is not wrong and neither is is the initiation of force.
I use aggression when I train karate, and I initiate force when I lift weights...or type, or anytime I begin an activity.

1) Many forms of aggression do not cause harm.
2) Many forms of harm are not caused by aggression.

So what gives with the NAP? Why is that the slogan for individual liberty?

How does it serve our movement to have a philosophical slogan that is errant on its face. It confuses people, and requires explanation every time the contradictions get pointed out.

Let's correct it once and for all.
To start the brainstorming session I offer the following:
Do not Initiate Nonconsensual Harm.

That's it. It includes all behavior that harms another. Violence, faud, statutes, etc...It perfectly wraps up what the NAP attempts to communicate. "INH" if we need a three letter acronym-or NINH. but for the sake of science, we have got to get our stuff together.

Let's break it down:
"Do not": Is a restriction

"Initiate": to means to start; and it leaves room for defensive and restoration.

"nonconsensual": means against someone else's will; and it leaves room for consent such as UFC fighting...other risky yet consensual acts.

"harm": means to injure ones interests.

Can the liberty movement have a sacred cow?

"Do not initiate nonconsensual harm."
****------------------------------****
In response to the flaming this post has gotten, I want to make something very clear:

I agree with the principle...I want to improve the label/slogan because:
1)When discussing LAW reform, precision is key. And the underlying principle ought to be as precise as the laws it will produce.

2)When introducing unfamiliar concepts to new people, clarity and simplicity is key. As it stands, the NAP requires a mountain of mental gymnastics to tie fraud to aggression. Even tying fraud to property rights is difficult. (Fraud is a contractual male en se offense.)

3) Non consensual harm already has legal precedence. A private party cannot have a valid cause of action without nonconsenual harm. It is a part of our legal heritage.

Those are my concerns and they are motivated by the goal of attaining individual liberty in my lifetime. Feel free to FLAME or to turn on your creativity and brainstorm with me. Whichever you think will help accomplish the objective.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NAP lost me years ago

when he stated that 'congress is where laws are made to regulate human behavior' or something to that affect. That is not correct and he lost me completely when he said that. It is where commercial and governmental regulations are made for capacities that have contractually bound themselves to that system of regulation. NAP doesn't seem sharp enough to completely comprehend the difference.

Of course I also disagree with a lot of what you posted here. Fraud is aggression because it has intent to gain from the harm committed against another. The nature of fraud is that one who was defrauded discovers the fraud after the fact. Contract fraud is not the only type of fraud either. Colorable claims are also a type of fraud.

Also "nonconsensual harm" makes no sense in law. Harm in the sense of a valid cause of action is actual injury which could be as simple taking someone's time without their permission all the way up to murder. If something was a truly fully informed consensual act then their would be no accuser alleging harm. The facts of the case may reveal no harm was actually done but if the element is present it one of the elements needed for cause of action to be valid.

"I use aggression when I train karate, and I initiate force when I lift weights...or type, or anytime I begin an activity."

In this scenario you are only operating in natural law. Common law has no application because you are not interacting with a potential accuser.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

okie dokie

"It is where commercial and governmental regulations are made for capacities that have contractually bound themselves to that system of regulation."
-Pony up your source of authority for this determination.
-The government has imprisoned those who disobey the will of the federal legislature...contracted or not. Just ask Tim Turner and his buddy Sam Kennedy, neither prevailed using this line of reasoning.

"If something was a truly fully informed consensual act then their would be no accuser alleging harm"
-Not necessarily, someone could still come forward after truly being fully informed and consenting to being harmed. If the harm was consensual then there would be no "injury" because "injury" is nonconsensual harm. Thus the accuser would not have standing as he would not have all the elements of a valid cause of action: duty-breach-causation-injury.

"Fraud is aggression because it has intent to gain from the harm committed against another."
-Fraud intends to gain from harming another, but there need not be aggression involved. Fraud can be completely devoid of aggression.
Aggression is aggression. Fraud is fraud. The two need not intersect.
-Check websters for the definition of aggression to see for yourself.

The 9th and 10th amendment of US Constitution

combined with the defined limited defined duties enumerated therein the men who claim to be in the capacity of government voluntarily obliged themselves to.

Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate any duty or authority to regulate the People nor would that make any sense within the context of Organic law and common law of agency. Contract law also is isolated to the parties of the contract and what defined duties may or may not apply to each. Spooner got all of this correct within the logic of law but I have not found any other man who has.

Just because the people want to enslave themselves to criminals through their own ignorance of law that's really not my problem. The law is for protections but if no one understands how law works then they are doomed to be lost in a sea of confusion and lose all of law's protections.

"Aggression is aggression. Fraud is fraud. The two need not intersect."
Intent to perform any type of harm is a form of aggression. This is merely self evident truth of how I would operate on a jury. Real fraud is a form of aggression because intends injury for one's gain. You could call it opinion if you want but understanding it's form of aggression is why on a jury I would uphold the law by finding this to be an aggressive act. Any act that intends to injure unjustly is a form of aggression.

"-The government has imprisoned those who disobey the will of the federal legislature...contracted or not."
That's because it is not government, it is criminal men who do not live within the bounds of law. The 'government' has also murdered millions of innocent people for the criminal agenda of a few. So your statement only reinforces my point. If the people do not uphold the law then criminals will overthrow the government and reign tyranny upon the people. That's a law of nature.

"Not necessarily, someone could still come forward after truly being fully informed and consenting to being harmed."
Your missing my point. I am simply referring to elements of a valid cause of action being present or not. They are just logical check boxes that need to be filled for subject matter jurisdiction to be present for trial. From a strict logic point of view of seeking all elements being present or not, allegations of harm would present for the cause to be valid to be heard by the jury. Within the facts of the individual situation will either be allegations of harm or not. If the element is present with all other required elements the case goes to trial. If that element doesn't exist then under law the court would lack subject matter jurisdiction because no valid cause exists.

Honestly, all of this is getting boring. The law is really simple but everyone is lost in a sea of confusion. For some reason Americans seem to demand slavery, refuse to learn and uphold the protections of law and then point to all of these others things as the problem. This is getting so boring and useless. America is doomed because of confusion.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

"Nowhere does the

"Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate any duty or authority to regulate the People"
-Article 1 section 8 lists the powers granted to the federal legislature,and they include many powers to regulate the people.
even jefferson agreed.

-The 9th and 10th say if its not granted then it belongs to the state legislatures or the people. I don't see how that validates your position.

"...make any sense within the context of Organic law"
-How so? The DOI severed political power with the crown. The articles of confederation were considered too weak. And the northwest ordinance was obsolete the moment the current federal constitution was adopted.

"or the common law of agency."
-congress is not exercising agency rights when it makes law. it is exercising governmental power. Which is the power to harm with legal impunity. The law of conquest, the law of rulership. The law of a superior force controlling a weaker force.

"The law is for protections but if no one understands how law works..."
-edify me. I'm all ears.

"That's because it is not government..."
-What in your mind is government? Do you think Alexander the great conquered europe to provide the roads? Or the many kings of england fought for land and subjects so they could be the lucky one to service the peasants. NO. Government in a militant entity that rules over society-Always has. It's an intrinsic part of being government.

Whatever features you've ascribed to government are a product of government propaganda. (correct me if I'm wrong but) You think of government as being a non-profit management company limited in authority to running infrastructure and the like...it is not. And it never has been on this continent or any other. The legislature has always had the power to take what it wants, when it wants, how it wants from you...and if you refuse they will put you in a box. If you resist, they will put you in the ground. This is what it means to have the power to govern.

The moment government loses its power to initiate nonconsensual harm, is the moment it loses its power to govern, and therefore, the moment it ceases to be government.

What you describe is lawlessness

You can enslave yourself to criminals if want to. You can grant them authority over you. That is of no business to me. I am only interested in the proper application and protections of law.

"Article 1 section 8 lists the powers granted to the federal legislature, and they include many powers to regulate the people."

That is not true within the proper application of law nor does this section even say such a thing. The application is specific to exactly what it says. None of this can grant them the power to lawfully violate the law. There were/are other laws that are applicable to them as men that supersede the laws enumerated for that capacity. This inherently negates your fallacy:
"Government in a militant entity that rules over society-Always has. It's an intrinsic part of being government"

When someone breaches my peace or breaches duty they agreed to with me then there is a valid cause of action for a jury to hear the facts. Anything else is lawlessness.

If that is too hard for you to understand then your activities are no business to me. If the gang of criminals you have chosen to enslave yourself to breaches my peace and injures me in any way I will seek justice in the proper lawful jurisdiction. If access to the lawful process of justice is denied and is only returned as repeated injury then there will only be the laws of nature, being equal station to us, that govern any relations thus leaving divine providence as the supreme judge.

I am just a law abiding man and I refuse to grant omnipotent power to violate the law upon any other man or group of men. Equal justice under the law is the only thing I understand.

"And it never has been on this continent or any other"

That is a complete lack of knowledge of history that is only worthy of the complete response before a jury.

Thank you though for notifying me of your enslavement to criminals. Its good to know for reputation purposes.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

If that is too hard for you to understand then your activities a

"If that is too hard for you to understand then your activities are no business to me."
-I understand the concept perfectly. I am saying it doesn't exist under the current legal system.
-And apparently you agree "If access to the lawful process of justice is denied...leaving divine providence as the supreme judge."
-I'm for a legal system that you describe. I am pointing out that it does not exist.

"You can grant them authority over you"
-I grant them nothing. They take as they are able.

"There were/are other laws that are applicable to them as men that supersede the laws enumerated for that capacity"
-Such as? Please tell us what other legal instruments are binding on these men.

"When someone breaches my peace...valid cause of action..."
-Not if it is in accord with the will of the legislature. You cannot bring an action against any lawmaker who passes a statute that harms you, any executive or judicial officer who carries out that law.
-I am a student of Bill Thornton and Ed Rivera and they have told me themselves that the current legal system is not friendly towards these arguments.
-Again, I am PRO what you are describing but it is not the "boots on the ground situation."

"...I refuse to grant omnipotent power to violate the law upon any other man or group of men."
-Oh boy, I'd like to see you try to grant omnipotent power to someone.
Its not that you refuse to grant it, its that you cannot grant it. No man grants omnipotent power to another, but legal immunity can be seized with a superior violence making machine...

"Thank you though for notifying me of your enslavement to criminals."
-Lame.

Applicable law

"-I'm for a legal system that you describe. I am pointing out that it does not exist."
Of course it does not exist if the law is not upheld by men competent in law. Existence can only be achieved when exercised.

"-I grant them nothing. They take as they are able."
They take only as the enabled within the bounds of all applicable law. If the law is not applied then it is not applicable.

"Such as? Please tell us what other legal instruments are binding on these men."
No applicable legal instruments are claimed. Common law is applicable when equal access to impartial justice is upheld for a valid cause of action.

"You cannot bring an action against any lawmaker who passes a statute that harms you, any executive or judicial officer who carries out that law."
I claim no ability to do what you suggest. A man who harms another gives valid cause to seek remedy under law. Also, a statute cannot harm anyone, it is a legal fictional mechanism.

"-I am a student of Bill Thornton and Ed Rivera and they have told me themselves that the current legal system is not friendly towards these arguments."
The law has equal access to its protections when upheld regardless of another man's opinions. It is law in all forms of lawful application that I am referring. Common law is applicable when men seek remedy from injury through equal justice under the law. Natural law is inviolate and applicable to all who exist in nature. Divine law shapes inviolate nature through its inspiration upon man's consciousness and action born of that divine inspiration. The protections of law are equally accessible to those who wish to live within its protections, the choice is each individual's.

"-Oh boy, I'd like to see you try to grant omnipotent power to someone."
One will grant omnipotent power to another when one chooses to live outside the protections of law. You are clearly granting them omnipotent power over you by giving them all say in all matters without any lawful bounds.

"-Lame."
Ditto

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

this debate sucks worse than

this debate sucks worse than jeff goldblum reading the audiobook of the tale of two cities.

He?

Um...NAP is not a person (lol--wtf)

NAP stands for Non-Aggression Principle.

?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Sorry missed that one bad

I instantly thought you were referring to Judge Nap.

Egg on the face on this one judge nap comment:/

The rest still stands.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

helps to read the post before

helps to read the post before writing a reply. im not saying you have to or that its the only way, or a better way, or that one way is better than another. its just another way of doing things, something to try out, see how it works for you.

lol

epic fail

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Terms like "initiation of force" or "initiation of violence" ..

...are not precise and lead to confusion - obviously.

What the NAP is saying is "do not violate property rights."

That's it.

And to violate property rights means to use someone else's property without their consent. This covers what are normally called 'crimes against property' such as theft and vandalism as well as what are normally called 'crimes against persons' such as rape and murder (because your body is your property too).

So, for example, if you karate chop your friend in karate class, this is a not a property rights violation, since you're using your friends property (his body) with his permission. Whereas, if you karate chop some random person on the street, this is a property rights violation, because you're using their property (their body) without their permission.

Very simple. It's really not a confusing concept.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

not confusing

when you explain it like you did. good job!

Thanks

:-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Non-Aggression Principle definition (as I understand it;)

NAP: It is unjust and immoral to initiate the use of force, fraud, or coercion against another peaceful-acting human being.

To me, this clarifies any confusion.

"Aggression" is wrong (look up definition in dictionary), and so is the initiation of force against a peaceful human.

"Aggressive" is used to define an all-out effort. Aggressiveness.

"Fraud" is in the definition. It covers harm done by deceit.

"Force" covers non-consent as well as violence.

"Peaceful-acting Human Being" clarifies acts that don't involve harm to human beings such as lifting weights or Karate training.

I see the points you're trying to make, and I like the effort in trying to simplify. "Harm" might be too subjective. I could steal money from you, and claim it didn't harm you because you had too much of it already.

-n8

Thanks

I was going to ask where you got that definition of the NAP (which I agree with btw) and then I saw that you qualified it as your understanding. It's mine too. (more or less)

The following is meant with a positive tone:
About this statement "Harm" might be too subjective. I could steal money from you, and claim it didn't harm you because you had too much of it already."

Harm is completely subjective; it's circumstance based, unique to the individual, and can change moment to moment.
How can any legislature or other uninvolved party rightly make preemptive determinations that punish behavior that involved parties find harmless? They can't- they do only for social engineering purposes, but not otherwise.

Fortunately, there are more checks involved than just your opinion when others are involved. Observe:
1)The initiator of the nonconsensual harm.
2)The victim of nonconsensual harm.
3)The judge who validates whether or not the victim has a legitimate claim.
4)The jury the victim must unanimously convince to authorize action.
That is the system anglo-saxons have been using to authorize the distasteful use of defensive and restorative nonconsensual harm.

A Problem of NAP

Intelligent post. I've thought about this NAP issue.

Aggression is a tone, not an act. Offense, however, is an act, an initiatory one. From the word offense derives offends, as in "Dan, take a shower, you have an odor and it offends me."

That example displays something offensive, Dan's odor. If Dan's neglected a shower long enough so that his stink evolves into stench, then the complainer is in the right to take a nasty tone to Dan.

Maybe the complainer would be out of place being aggressive to Dan, but perhaps Dan's done things additional to the stench to cause the complainer grief. If Dan has, the complainer would be correct to behave aggressively. Aggression, again, is a tone, a style, a manerism or body language that conveys great displeasure after an offense such as an assault or long standing anguish rather than after something petty. Some times aggression is suitable.

I favor the term offense to the term aggression. Make NAP NOP. Lol. Add an E for fun, but make the E small, e, to show it's without meaning and is a linguistic play. NOPe. :-P No, really, I think NOP could work. I say "could" because the O (instead of A) gets to the heart of the matter, distinguishing two acts, offense and defense. What I'm wary about concerning "offense" in NOP is that NOP could be referred to for triviality.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

at last

VERY CLEVER. And spot on point. Thank you. I'm smiling ear to ear.

Yes, I would have the same concern as you about NOPe being referred for triviality...but otherwise it is excellent :) Very well conceived.

Exactly, we don't want to criminalize trivialities.

I'm going to chew on this and write back to you.

Cool. Look forward to reading

Cool. Look forward to reading what you'll say. :) Later, AR.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

I came to a sticking point...

and have been working the premise from the opposite direction.
As it stands, your NOPe is the pinnacle.
well done again :)

When you said you've been

When you said you've been working the premise from the opposite direction, do you mean you've been working on an argument opposite my argument?

What you said, that you're trying to counter my argument, makes me feel good. See, that is what I like to read and hear and what I wish was prevalent on the DP: I love meeting someone who contemplates a thing, informs his replier he's doing that and will get back to him. Conversations are a way to learn, and they can happen in one meeting or multiple meetings, just as our conversation has.

That you're thinking about what I said is great and that you're trying to counter my argument delights me because I've found someone who wants to learn, who disregards who is right or wrong which is to say who wants to know what is what because he recognizes truth favors no one and is available to everyone.

Can't wait to read your counter argument, AR. Awesome. :)

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Nailed it again ABBA

I came here because I (mistakenly) thought that attitude was prevalent.
Boy was I ever wrong. Ahh well, I'll keep looking until I find my brain home. It is nice to meet you though...a gem in the haystack?

Would you care to read a short logical proof I wrote?

You bet I would care, AR.

You bet I would care, AR. Drop it here. I'd love to read it.

A gem in the haystack -- the DP or me at the DP? If the latter, no. But if I am, there's more than one gem. AR, here's a book I think you'd like.

And, AR, it's nice to meet you.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

enjoy

http://www.dailypaul.com/298184/logical-proof-for-individual...

I bought the book you suggested. I'll have it soon and let you know what I think. Thanks for the rec :)

Your definition would destroy business

If I open a competing business without your permission I have pretty much operated in exact opposition to your definition.

I have harmed your interest by taking your customers.
I have done so without your consent.
I initiated this harm by opening my competing business.

Not all harm is immoral or wrong. Competition is harm.
Not all violence is immoral or wrong. My defending myself through the use of violence against your violence is still violence.

Initiating violence against another without their consent is always immoral or wrong.

Aggression is the closest single word to articulate the statement "initiation of violence against another without their consent". If you can find another single word that better articulates this statement, great, let's switch to that. Until then I think the "Non-Aggression Principle" is still a best fit.

Me to and good point

All the qualifiers read as follows: Do not initiate direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm.

Also, in order to perfect your claim, you would have to somehow show that you owned your customers money or you were somehow entitled to their future purchases, and the competing business interfered with the transactions you were entitled to.
That is a real claim. Tortious/wrongful interference with a business contract...

Also, I would like to point out that harm has been a critical element in private court actions for over a thousand years. In order to bring a valid private action to court one must demonstrate direct,proximate, and nonconsensual harm.

Great points.

I'll just drop this

I'll just drop this here:

http://archive.mises.org/5327/the-problem-with-fraud-fraud-t...

The theory of contract espoused here demonstrates that fraud is properly viewed as a type of theft. Suppose Karen buys a bucket of apples from Ethan for $20. Ethan represents the things in the bucket as being apples, in fact, as apples of a certain nature, that is, as being fit for their normal purpose of being eaten. Karen conditions the transfer of title to her $20 on Ethan’s not knowingly engaging in ‘fraudulent’ activities, like pawning off rotten apples. If the apples are indeed rotten and Ethan knows this, then he knows that he does not
receive ownership of or permission to use the $20, because the condition ‘no fraud’ is not satisfied. He is knowingly in possession of Karen’s $20 without her consent, and is, therefore, a thief.

I would go one further and

I would go one further and say that neither principle is universally valid. If someone is following me around calling my female relations wh0res, and I punch them in the nose, I have initiated force involuntarily but I was not wrong.

Likewise, that guy who punched Piers Morgan didn't do anything wrong.

If one person managed to legally get control of all the water in a town and people were going thirsty, they wouldn't be wrong to use force to get a drink.

If someone's property has to be trespasses to rescue a child or animal from pain or harm, it is not wrong even if it goes against the wishes of the property owner.

You're not going to find hard and fast truth in any slogan. Think for yourself.

morally, perhaps

You would still be liable legally (referring to the first example). A jury of your peers might acquit you, but you would be charged.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus