10 votes

The Non-Aggression Principle Re-defined

No one has the right to initiate physical aggression against another person or their property, except when disciplining a child.

If you downvote this, please explain why you disagree with this formulation. It seems to be what the majority here believes.




Comment viewing options

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

If you are incapable of

explaining to a CHILD what it is they did wrong and why they deserve punishment; without resorting to physical reprimand then you probably shouldn't be a parent.

What kind of message does that send to your children that the initiation of force/violence on others or their property is always morally reprehensible; unless the person they should be able to trust most in the world does it?

Most parents use physical punishment because they get frustrated; which is understandable, but unacceptable. Reason and logic do not always compute for children, that is why YOU (the adult) must EXPLAIN to THEM (the child) in detail why their actions were wrong.

That is all well and good.

Sometimes the child does not listen to your explanation. Sometimes a swat on the butt is needed to get the ears engaged.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

What's good for the goose...

What's good for the goose... is good for the gander.

Philosophy is all about CONSISTENT application of logical processes. So if YOU INSIST that the authority figure introduce force or pain in order to "engage" a person to notice logical statements, then IT NECASSARILY must also be true that the boys in blue or other "authority figures" in the government would be correct in tazing, mild beating, pepper spray... just to "get you to listen..."

If YOU DENY that last statement, and you DISAGREE with this conclusion, then your first premise of "spanking to get them to listen" is incorrect in the first place... OR you are a person that prefers to APPLY LOGIC INCONSISTENTLY, in which case, philosophy just ain't a game that you play well or play correctly. AKA you prefer "special pleading."

Because I was directed to

Because I was directed to this thread, I decided to scroll down and saw this post of yours. I would like to say just a few things.

Philosophy is certainly not “all about [consistent] application of logical processes.” And it is not a game. You have raised logic to such heights that it verges on being a modern substitute for the Goddess of Reason during the French Revolution. Philosophy covers a range of topics, logic being just one subset. Logic is a mechanism, a tool if you will, for analyzing arguments made from premises and conclusions. Instead of seeing it as a tool, the tool is worshipped as an end in itself. You write as if there is THE logic, just out there, waiting to be observed, as if it were an ontological entity! Logic's rigor is in its application, not necessarily in its premises, which are but assumed to be true.

But I’m curious: what does logic have to do with the practical nature of child rearing? Child rearing, like other practical activities, deals not in logic, but through trial and error, through wisdom, through use and wont, through learning. Again, it is this faith you place in logic that it has all but made us automatons. Life is not a syllogism by which one operates as if a computerized automaton would. Life is a mystery, it involves sentiment, it involves emotion and feeling, and it involves using the past and experience to guide one into the future. To think all one has to do is apply the right logic, that you haughtily possess THE LOGIC, is as absurd as it would be to say you conduct your sex life by applying the right logic!

We must remember that many of the clinically insane possess highly logical minds. It is not logic they dispossess, but rather common sense.

One more thing. Speaking of logic, you make a huge leap that does not follow from one of your statements. From a parent disciplining a child you make a huge leap into the abyss and claim it “[necessarily]” follows that those in government can taze or mildly beat you to get you to listen. If ever there were a case of a non sequitur this would be one.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

dear brutus

Perhaps the next time you are trying to convince a big government enthusiast, you will face this type of rhetoric yourself:
"Logic? There are people suffering and we need to do something! We need more spending, and not some convoluted arguments."

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I'm not sure what logic's

I'm not sure what logic's relevance is here. People suffering in the world is a fact of life to be sure. But how one takes this and applies logic, I'm at a loss. It's not as if one has to write down the right logical structure and, viola!, deduce the right course of action.

I could say that there are limits to this world, that prudence should be heeded, that one should not look to the state to solve problems that have been addressed in the past by other authorities.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

This is a good discussion

I enjoy the rigor, and hope we can keep it civil. I say this because I have engaged deeply with others here in the past. I consider these people to be "my brothers in the search for truth." But when I got invested in these deep discussions, I have had people turn on me; and start to get "snippy," if you will; where it becomes "adversarial" and I was just trying to make sound arguments and search for the truth, but other sought to demean or try to make me look bad. So I hope you understand, and that you and I can be "brothers in the search for truth." Seriously. I don't want enemies.

----

As for "what is philosophy?" I'm sure we could get real deep. My thoughts on it: Is that "Philosophy is similar to the scientific method, but it is the scientific method that we apply to thoughts and ideas."

Perhaps I am mixing up "logic" and "philosophy." But I hope you get my meaning; that the CONSISTENCY that we see in the scientific method allows everyone to reproduce the same results. And that consistency is what allows us to determine WHAT IS LIKELY TRUE, or what is the likely cause or explanation.

And this is not "the classical definition" of philosophy. I certainly am not a "trained philosopher" in any way. I just enjoy deep thought.

I may just be way off on the term "philosophy" and may actually be looking for another word here; perhaps you can aid me in this.

----

What does logic have to do with the practical nature of child rearing?... Life is not a syllogism by which one operates as if a computerized automaton would... is as absurd as it would be to say you conduct your sex life by applying the right logic!

As for applying logic to dating, relationships, parenting, sex life... you name it... Surely we have emotions. But CAN WE SUBSTITUTE EMOTIONS for logic, arguments, reasoning? I don't think we can. I'm pretty sure that we use logic when choosing a mate, deciding how we want to have sex, how we should parent, how we should maintain our relationships. I deny any claim that "these acts are purely driven by emotion" just because our emotions are heightened during these situations. YOU STILL reason through the sex, the parenting, and so on. EMOTIONS ARE INVOLVED, but I don't see how that DETRACTS from any logic used?

----

...you make a huge leap... and claim it “[necessarily]” follows that those in government can taze or mildly beat you to get you to listen.

The original response was to this comment:

Sometimes the child does not listen to your explanation. Sometimes a swat on the butt is needed to get the ears engaged.

How is that ANY DIFFERENT THAN CLAIMING: "Sometimes the (citizen) does not listen to your explanation. Sometimes a swat on the butt is needed to get the ears engaged."???

I think you are confusing

I think you are confusing logic with reason. Though they are related in some way, they are not the same thing. Reason is a type of thought, logic being a feature of reason. Logic proper, however, is a more formal mechanism of thought, describing certain norms and rules, usually at it pertains to arguments.

I’m not saying that we should exclusively use emotion, in a Rousseauian fashion, but that life is not predicated on one set of human attributes; it consists of a collage of qualities.

You state that you use logic when choosing a mate, etc. I find this strange. Again you may be confusing pure logic with reason or thinking. I mean do you compose syllogisms by which to deduce the right mate?

Per the last part: From the authority of a parent, it does not follow that that same authority can be justified to others. If I say a parent can take a child, by force, to the doctor, despite the child’s protestations, it does not follow that someone else, like a police officer, can take a child and bring them to the doctor. The former is proper parental authority; the latter could be considered kidnapping, depending on the context.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

"Do you compose syllogisms by which to deduce the right mate?"

I mean do you compose syllogisms by which to deduce the right mate?

Of course not. But I am sure that you are constantly reformulating, then she lies or has really bad habits or beliefs that you disagree with, and you realize she doesn't like to exercise, or she doesn't want to have kids, or ______ ..." And you find out that "this mate does not fit with me or my goals..."

So all the time you may be feeling excitement, enjoyment, anxiety, and a full set of emotions. But you are also able to make calculations at each and every moment. You are able to discern your "likes and dislikes," your preferences, at any moment.

So in a way, I do see that "you reason out, or determine logically, does this mate suit me or my goals?"

And you may determine, that "he/she" may or may not suit yourself or your goals.

RE:

OR you are a person that prefers to APPLY LOGIC INCONSISTENTLY, in which case, philosophy just ain't a game that you play well or play correctly. AKA you prefer "special pleading."

Lol, that is one thing it is about for sure. Weeding out those willing to consistently play the game versus those who are not because the latter have no business playing the game and their inconsistent attempts at playing the game deserve no respect.

Why is it this is up for question.

Is it really all that difficult for some of you just to say you're sorry. Too look those in the eye you have abused, and just ADMIT fault.

Or would you rather pervert a philosophical school of thought that is beyond question intellectually and definitively to make your past wrongs just?

NAP is an axiom, not some willy-nilly 21st century meme that is fluid and easily re-definable.

I would suggest those that live by the sword will die by it, and those that defy god, will pay for it. The least of all I should suggest you do some soul-searching.

Imagine if you pulled over to help me fix a flat on the side of the road and to your surprise I'm trying to tell you a hammer will not fix a flat. You continue to tell me over and over while we both sit there on the side of the road. All you had to say was you had no other tools.

tasmlab's picture

I don't think the spankers give a fig about NAP

They wouldn't feel any need to modify something they disregard in the first place.

Not that the lines between groups is so pristine, I'm just generalizing after a scan of the posts below.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U

You're probably right.

Anyone willingly to hit someone that is defenseless to solve a dispute is already sick in the head, and then to add on to it someone they love and are purely responsible for... It's like convincing people the earth is actually a sphere because they cannot comprehend gravity and mass. The pictures are just 2D conspiracies.

"No one has the right to

"No one has the right to initiate physical aggression against another person or their property, except when disciplining a child."

A better, more fitting, definition for the child beaters at DP should be:

No one has the right to initiate physical aggression against another person or their property, except when the person of whom is being aggressed upon is of lesser standing than the self-imposed standing of the aggressor.

Not only children has been part of this discussion but also people with mental deficiencies, people with deceases like suicidal tendencies or addictions.. a.s.o.a.s.f

All this because people cannot see any other way to teach children without the use of aggressive force...

I argue that...

I argue that this also implies that the police and military can "treat us like dependents that are beneath them and need their protection, and we can't understand the big picture, since we are not given the incformation that the CIA and NSA have, and that we are not in the protector position."

So the military and police then have the legitimate right to taze, handcuff, detain us using violent means, so long as they don't cripple us permanently in any way.

It is an EXTREME comparison. But the premises are similar.

"I can spank you... cause I am capable of knowing what's best for you and you are not."

"I can taze, handcuff, and physically detain you... cause I am capable of knowing what's best for you and you are not."

I don't think it is an

I don't think it is an extreme comparison at all. In fact I find it an excellent comparison and shows how wrong spankers are. Sadly you wont ever convince them about that. It is all too internalized. The response "My parents did it to me and I turned out all right" is really telling and makes me go derp!

I think that response is natural...

I am totally sympathetic to this position; I don't agree and have outlined the philosophy quite well imo. This spanking issue IS A HARD HURDLE for people to get over mentally. You are right, it is so "internalized" and seemingly trivial, we give it little thought, about as much thought as wondering if water is wet; it seems trivial to people that have not externalized it and syllogistically thought it through.

I got on the topic listening to early Stefan Molyneux podcasts; and at first I was like "what is this guy smoking? spanking is no big deal; let's focus on the big bad government..."

But the more he went on, the more I had to ponder the topic. THEN I stopped spanking my kid, and I never laid a hand on him again. That was years ago. I still apologize to my son and tell him why I was so wrong, and why he shouldn't spank his future kids, and that no amount of apologies will make us even on that deal...

I don't think spanking will just DESTROY A PERSON or anything. But NEGOTIATION WITH A PERSON should surely give the person a chance to gain some life skills.

well put

well put

Wouldn't it be interesting

To see how these same people treat their elders once they need care? I can see it now -- "What else do you want me to do, she pissed on the carpet. I had to rub her nose in it, she cannot think for herself so the piss smell on her face will remind her that peeing on the carpet means peeing on her face." (But if she can't reason to not pee on the carpet what makes you think she'll connect those dots?) But in my eyes it's control. Someone with a small brain that cannot control others with words will resort to whatever means necessary.

I dealt with this mentality my entire childhood with my father. He brags about it to this day to those willing to listen. In his eyes it wasn't just means for punishment it was means for "toughening us up". Yet, he don't see the correlation that we (4 brothers) all are now divorced/separated because of DING DING spousal abuse.

In order to enable my father to hit me as a kid I had to forget what a wolf looked like and ever since then I have been non-stop attacked by wolves claiming to be sheep. The abuse centering around whippings has impacts that are far-far reaching then the problem solvers with a leather strap could ever dream of comphrehending.

Ever notice the most common self-reference for hitting is; "well it happened to me, and I'm fine". (so long as you don't count beating your children as "fine").

Logic, and reason, abuse style.

Hey Ed,

I believe spanking is harmful and destructive. I won't ever do it to my child again, and I advocate every chance I get, that anyone I am close to do not either.

That being said, spanking a child is a kin to physically retraining them against there will. Why does the NAP allow for that, but not for spanking.

I have heard molyneux use the phrase "You own yourself and the effects of your actions" more than i can count. If my child is not the effect of my action, please let me know why. Otherwise, the principle needs to be revised.

It is my contention that the parent child relationship is a condition of joint ownership. As the child accepts more freedom, the parent loses more control. When a child is a moral agent, the parent loses any rights to govern their behavior without consent.

Séamusín

Hi Seamusin,

I would say that parents have guardianship rights over children, which gives the parents rights to restrain a child for the child's safety. I don't see spanking as part of that charge, namely to restrain a child to protect the child from danger. Rather, spanking is an after-the-fact action meant to condition through physical pain. Thus, I see a difference between the two.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

It could be said that everything we do is for a childs safety

Like putting them in the crib when we are tired of dealing with because they won't stop crying. Or strapping them in the car because we are going to take them somewhere that they have no interest in going, because its what the parent wants to do.

Who are we to act with aggression towards them, just because we would be inconvenienced otherwise...

There are many times that I acted in ways that would have been considered a violation of the NAP had I behaved that way towards an adult, and for my own selfish purposes without any regard for safety. Leaving the child with the baby sitter for a date night between mom and dad perhaps. Where is the line?

No, I think there is a clear issue with this. And lastly, if property rights are owning ones self and the effects of ones actions, why is this case different, or must it be revised?

I do want to take this time to reiterate, I am not a spanker. I was, and I have since changed my ways, and with much thanks to molyneux who leads the charge on this issue. But he is wrong about the principle here. It is clearly self contradictory.

Séamusín

Who are you to put an adult

with a mental deficiency into a wheelchair or hospital bed? Even if someone were to use these things to justify spanking with a child, they're justifying spanking for mentally disabled adults as well.

No one is trying to use this to justify anything.

I have made it a point to say numerous times that I do not believe that spanking is justifiable.

What I am suggesting is that there is a special relationship between parent and child, due to the nature of that child's existence. That because a child is a completely dependent life, incapable of surviving without parents behaving in ways that would in any other circumstances be considered acts of aggression, the NAP doesn't apply here.

There can only be one of two reasons why it wouldn't apply. A. The child, being a product of human labor and natural resources, is the property of the parent and that relationship continues until the child has become a moral agent, which at the point demands the Child's consent for any further submission to the parents will. Or B. The NAP is not a first principle at all and need to be revised.

I personally am quite fond of the the NAP, and so I prefer the former. A clear and well defined notion of property rights is fundamental to the adherence of the NAP.

Séamusín

I definitely appreciate the fact

that you're not trying to invalidate NAP just to make the erroneous connection between placing a child in a carseat and corporal punishment like many here are. I am curious though - if NAP doesn't apply to your relationship with your child, do you also believe it doesn't apply to an adult with the same mental age that needs to be cared for in the same way?

To be honest, no.

It might sound quite disturbing to you, but I have a very hard time reconciling the way we treat folks in nursing homes and mental wards against their will.

Think of it like suicide. Do you believe it is not a violation to forcefully prevent someone from commiting suicide?

Séamusín

Restraining and spanking are two entirely different things.

'That being said, spanking a child is a kin to physically retraining them against there will. Why does the NAP allow for that, but not for spanking.'

If you are physically restraining them, I assume its because you are protecting them from a hazard, or protecting someone else from the child's aggression.

Spanking on the other hand corporal punishment that happens after you have control of the situation, and the danger has passed. It is therefore an initiation of violence that doesn't need to occur making it a violation of NAP.

Would it be a violation of the NAP to strap me into a seat

Leaving me no way to get out? How about lifting me up into the air and carrying me off to a jail cell that is too big for me to escape from, regardless of how much I resist?

Let me tell you what. If you try some shit like that on me, you betchore ass I am going to respond.as if you were violating the NAP.

Séamusín

Of course that would be a violation of NAP

Since you are an adult with full cognitive capacity. The reason we can physically manipulate children is because they cannot fend for themselves or survive on their own. Barring from dangers they cannot comprehend or don't appreciate is part of that. It is the same reason you can physically manipulate an adult with cognitive deficiencies to help keep them alive without violating NAP.

So what you are saying is that certain aspects of the NAP

Apply differently, to different people, under different circumstances?

Waiter, waiter!!!

Can we get an Einstein over here to draw up a general theory of Non-aggression???

Séamusín