The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
1 vote

Does it violate NAP?

Arrest - seizing a person suspected or accused of a crime against his will and holding him captive.

Jury trial - How can the democratic vote or consensus of random people justify the inflicting of loss of liberty on a person?

Would NAP conforming security agencies be permitted to arrest and hold suspects for trial?

Arrest and trial are not self defense. In essence, a person is kidnapped and imprisoned on suspicion, pending a decision by some other people.

The principle of convincing some arbitrary number of people, beyond their subjective reasonable doubt, of the victim's guilt, is essentially a democratic principle. The principle assumes it is valid for one group of people to deny liberty or life to another person, and decide their fate, on the basis of a group consensus.

The punishment inflicted on the accused by the tribunal, to which he never consented to be subjected, is aggression. It is violence and coercion which is not in self defense. It works on the principle that twelve against one (the jury against the accused) is a sufficient ratio to override the rights of the accused.

Why twelve, instead of two, instead of two hundred?

Nothing in the arrest or trial of a suspect can be construed as self defense. It is, rather, the claim to jurisdiction over another person merely on suspicion and accusation, and the claim of a right to inflict harm or loss of liberty on that person, on the basis of what twelve random strangers think.

This applies equally to any security agency that a person has not voluntarily contracted to consent to. It too would be committing aggression in the process of arrest, trial and punishment.

It would seem to me that arrest on suspicion or accusation, as well as trial by any court to which the individual did not willingly subject himself by contract, would constitute aggression. This is so whether carried out by a security agency or by a publicly funded court, and so would violate NAP.

Furthermore, a person can always deny that they contracted to any such subjection (or to any contract, in fact). A contract based on signature is just a scrap of paper. If the alleged signer disputes it, that too must go before judgment, before a panel or tribunal of some sort, for a verdict.

The person is then essentially accused of breaking a contract, and so that accusation in turn is itself subject to a decision, necessarily by third parties.

This tribunal, or arbitration, suffers from all the problems described above for general trial where no contractual consent is claimed to have been granted.

On what grounds can one person, or group of people, override the claim of another person that they never agreed to a contract?

On what grounds can they then forcibly hold them to terms which they claim they never consented to?

It seems that any arrest or trial of another person inherently violates NAP, as all depend on validating aggression on the basis of some arbitrary consensus of other people, whether twelve or some other number.

Can a democratic principle of consensus ever nullify a person's right to be free of aggression?

If not, then all arrests and trials are invalid on NAP.

If it can, then that means the principle of consensus or democratic judgment is valid, as such.

If its valid for a group to decide the fate of an individual, this establishes the whole principle behind coercive government.

Pick your poison.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

"Is 2+2=4 valid?"

Alot of talk about "Is the NAP even valid?"

And questions of the sort, also implying that natural property rights and ownership are also invalid.

Well consider Johnny sitting in the classroom. If Johnny has "2+2=5" written, and the teacher and everyone is explaining he is incorrect and the give examples and explain to Johnny WHY 2+2=4 is correct...

Johnny could just sit there and say "Is 2+2=4 even valid? Until you prove that arithmetic is valid, I disagree, and my 2+2=5 statement is just as correct."

So IF YOU FIND THE NAP or property rights to be invalid, either right now or in a hypothetical scenario such as in a future voluntaryist society, THEN YOU ARE MAKING THAT STATEMENT TO THE CLASS that 2+2=5, and we are all looking at you saying "SHOW US THEN. Show us your reasoning for how you present 2+2=5."

That is the pressure that a person is on when they try to say "Show me the nap is valid," IT IS THEY they needs to propose cases for WHY OR HOW the NAP or property rights are not valid. Then we have a discussion.

Until then, Johnny proudly folds his arms over his work: "2+2=5."

Bmore was correct.

I was hung up on validity. Validity is not at question in the post. I would like to work through this if you’re interested.

How about this?

I walk into a restroom, there’s a person lying on the floor with a contusion to their head. There is another person hunched over them. The person hunched over the one lying on the floor looks to you and says “I found this person lying here, they’re dead!”

The police show up and after some investigation inform the person that was found hunched over the deceased that they are a suspect in the circumstances of the death and would like him/her to accompany them to the police station for questioning.

The SUSPECT declines the police's request.

The police arrest the suspect against their will and take them away for questioning.

Does it violate the NAP?

Does the ARREST violate the NAP?

It appears to be a yes or no question to me.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

If not, then all arrests and trials are invalid on NAP.

This is true using the standard definition of the NAP you presented to me.

Is there a focused effort anywhere attempting to refine the rules of the NAP?

OP, I appreciate your patience with me, it wasn't in vain.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

Of course

Perhaps you can take the elements of this discussion and come up with an internally consistent and generally applicable set of principles that can be a criteria for good law.

It would need to tell us when initiating force is permitted, for example arrest. Is there need for some grand jury to decide if a warrant be issued? What level of certainty should be necessary for an arrest to be warranted?

It would need to incorporate a principle of retribution in addition to self defense, so that spotting an attacker months later minding his business can be covered.

It would need a clause about what level of escalation is justly acceptable in response to initiation of force, and on what basis. What if you think but don't know for sure if an intruder has a gun. Can you shoot him, or just train gun on them until they flee or wait for your buddies?

It would need a principle for why its okay to judge and sentence an accused person on the basis of the consensus of an arbitrary number of jurors or arbitration panel staff, who were not directly involved.

It would need a set of rules for security agencies to follow in conflicts with other agencies. If agency B is about to seize the good water depot, can agency A aggressively seize it first in order to not to lose the conflict?

Basically it needs a whole integrative legal and political theory like that which already existed when the constitution was written, after centuries of dealing with gnarly and tough little issues like this.

It is the nuances of reality that escape the utopian ideologists of NAP and anarchy, with their little principles that don't work when applied.


'you are either against us or with us.' Ill have neither.

My position is that there is a better way. Issues are not black and white but principles are.

Situations are as unique as the individuals involved.

Subscribing to this rigid nonsense is what leads to radicals in power. Im not trying to out-NAP you, dude. I just want you to use better judgement with people that may oppose your views.

NAP could be construed to wiping my ass in the right light, media and context. Like the Bible, the principles are the best part to be enforced.

I don't sign up for the crazy chit because I dont want a radical. I want a calculated leader that shows the propensity to lead our country. To push the US our way. Even if it fails, I will still support the ideas until the end.

NAP means Non-Aggression Principle. Ironic name only because it has stirred more chit stirring than most threads here.

It still fails to lead America.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul


There is no point to this until you clarify the following.

The Non-Aggression Principal is;

a) Valid

b) Invalid

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

You're hung up on validity,

You're hung up on validity, the purpose of this thread is discussing the extent and applicability of the principle, even if valid. I personally accept the principle as valid but conditional.

Ventura 2012

I’m not hung up on the validity of the principle.

I’m hung up on the extent of the OP’s intellectual honesty.

The post is overgeneralized with the tone of extent and applicability of the principle but it never makes that point.

We have no problem saying it’s valid. That shows we have no fear with our intellect, which makes us capable of change if a reasonable argument is presented. We are intellectually honest; we know where we stand with each other.

“rights in reality derive from the rights-defense accorded by the group to the individual; on his own, he has no recourse besides his own might.”

Do you believe this to be true?

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

I’m hung up on the extent of

I’m hung up on the extent of the OP’s intellectual honesty.

The OP is a troll. Don't feed the troll.

That's a statement of

That's a statement of absolute fact. Even if you believe in natural law, rights must be enforced to have substance in practice. Its a tautology.

Ventura 2012

I’m not questioning

whether rights have to be enforced to have substance in practice.

I’m questioning the claim that the enforcement has to come from a group for rights to exist.

We may not be comfortable with the idea; for rights to exist enforcement must originate from one’s own might but it doesn’t make it any less true.

If I’m walking down the street and get attacked by someone’s pet it is completely within my rights to defend myself to the death if need be. I’m not going to wait for my right-defense group to show up and protect me. Rights derive from self-ownership.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

The question is completely

The question is completely valid whether one accepts NAP or not. If I ask whether kicking sand violates the golden rule, the question is fully intelligible whether I believe the golden rule is good or not.

I didn’t say your question was invalid.

I said there was no point to the post. What idea you are trying to get us to understand or accept?

“Does kicking sand violate the golden rule?” Yes, that’s a perfectly intelligible question but it’s just drivel.

You need to put kicking sand in some context to make it relevant to the golden rule. If I’m just walking down the beach kicking sand how does that have any relevance to the golden rule?

It’s a perfect example of the overgeneralizations you hide behind, it’s intellectually dishonest and your posts are riddled with them.

I can’t decide if it’s subterfuge or willful ignorance.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

Well if just kicking sand

does not violate the golden rule, then the answer is No.

Now that I've taught you to answer a question, and the purpose of questions in general, you can apply the new wisdom to the questions in the post.

This is what I needed to hear.

I've was being willfully ignorant. I had an ephiphany. I can't believe how far off I was. I actually chuckeled out loud.
Lets start over tomorrow.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

The point of the post

is to get an answer to its questions. There's no point for you to be active on the post if you don't answer it's questions.

Police state anarchy.

No problem there. All you have to do is consent to living in a police state. Then there is no government and you can still be an anarchist.

I am a little surprised

that you are not willing to concede this point.

It really isn't subject to debate.

It is a mathematical fact.

Consider the case in which we have one victim, 1 defendant, and 1 juror.

There are only two possible binary states that the victim and the juror can assert in the trial. Either "guilty" or "not guilty."

You can easily construct a truth table for this scenario.

0 0 = 0
0 1 = 0
1 0 = 0
1 1 = 1

So, as you can see, only one of the 4 states (the case in which both the victim, and the juror believe the defendant is guilty) results in a guilty verdict (as opposed to 1 of 2 states, if the victim alone made the determination).

As the number of jurors increase, the scenarios resulting in a guilty verdict decline a the rate of 1:2^(j+1).

So, for example with 12 jurors, the ratio would be 1:8192 (out of 8192 possible combinations of guilty and not guilty, only one will result in a guilty verdict (unanimity of the jury and the victim).

Therefore, whatever other objections you may have to the system, you cannot credibly allege that trial by jury increases the probability of a NAP violation.

Further, if we stipulate for purposes of discussion that your assertion concerning the ability of 3rd parties (such as jurors) to achieve a level of certainty as high as the victim or other direct witnesses [something I would actually dispute, but will go along with for now], this means that it will be even harder to convince a juror to conclude "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty, making it even less likely than a NAP violation will occur.

I am not sure if you understand this reasoning or not. Perhaps not. Human thought processes are remarkably diverse, and it is possible that ours are so far apart that we will be unable to understand one another.

I've never denied or contested this claim

Quote me where or if I did.

I will extend the benefit of the doubt that you actually think I claimed this, and aren't just being disingenuous!

Bill, you violate the NAP

Bill, you violate the NAP every time you violently thrash our minds with your intellectual provocations! Some of us would like to peacefully never think harder about our perspectives, thank you.

Thanks, Chill


Red herring?

My issue with your posts is when you apply the NAP to a collective. You've said yourself it's an ethical stance. An ethical stance is subjective to the person defining the morals. Hence the NAP is not applicable to anything other than the private actions of an individual. You're introducing a red herring when you apply the NAP to arrests and trials (i.e.; a governing principle for society).

"Can a democratic principle of consensus ever nullify a person's right to be free of aggression?"

No. What is your personal opinion on this?

Thank you Ron for waking me up.

Red herring would be an irelevant distraction, so no.

At least not unless you clarify why something I said is a red herring. Please quote.

You say I apply NAP to a collective. Certainly not. I apply it to the arrest agent or the one carrying our sentence, imprisonment, etc. Yes, we can also apply it to that body of persons collectively acting under the aegis of an institution, such as a security agency, a court, or "the state." Those so fond of using the phrase state are also applying NAP to a collective when they accuse the state of violating it. So I'm not guilty of the charge, but rather the opposing side is most often the one referring to collectives in relation to the NAP. I am happy to focus just on the individuals committing aggression in the examples of my post, such as the arresting agent, etc.

In a word, your objection is false.

As to the question you ask of whether group consensus can ever nullify individual rights, the answer is twofold.

On NAP, no, because those individuals acting in consensus aren't acting in self defense.

In reality, yes, because rights in reality derive from the rights-defense accorded by the group to the individual; on his own, he has no recourse besides his own might.

picking my poison

This also relates to the "anarchist theory of war" in another thread. That theory is well illustrated by the following story:

It is said that soon after April 19, 1775, King George met with a group of his nobles and one of them said: "Give me two companies of grenadiers and I will go throughout all the colonies gelding all the males; a few will require force, but most will only need persuasion." And everyone at the meeting laughed. It was a good joke. But they didn't have a chance to meet a man like Isaac Davis (someone you would call an anarchist), who said, you can try to take my liberty, but if you do, one of us is going to die.

And that sort of sums it up. You may prefer "what we've got now," but most of my friends aren't going to have anything to do with your "justice" system. It's not just. We're tired of thugs going around acting like Nazis stopping people for no reason and asking for their papers because some clowns in black robes tells them it's OK. We know too many people rotting in cages. We're not aggressing against anyone, but when your juries, and your judges, and your courts, and their thugs come for us, we're not going to consent. Some individual may come and try to subject us to your wonderful "justice." If that happens, I've already made up my mind (and I know a lot of my fellow anarchists have too). I'm not going in your courts. If someone tries to take my liberty, one of us is going to die. It's that simple.

Simple voluntary simplicity

Those who demand voluntary complexity are able to find a voluntary supply to effectively meet that demand.

The simple truth is a way of defending against the tangled webs spun by those who willfully deceive and those who merely parrot deceptions.

When the simple truth is simply in view, clear view of the simple truth, the confusion as to how best to defend against lying thieves is simply found in fact, in time, and in place.

There is the criminal, caught red handed in a lie, caught red handed in the act of stealing, and the simple fact of the matter is no longer hidden by the criminal misdirections.

All that has nothing to do with the demand for better ways to produce a better life in Liberty; which can become as complicated as demanded by those seeking better ways to produce a better life.

So the criminals liars will tend to blame their tangled web of lies, the complexity they create as each lie demands 1000 more lies to cover up the first one, to blame the 1 lie, and the 1000 additional lies, blame that on any other cause other than their lies - simple misdirection.

It sure is good to hear words of simple true facts, thanks, compared to such an abundance of non-competitive lies, the starkness of simple true facts against the background of a tangle of lies is remarkable.


Completely off topic

and avoided answering the question. I can't really do anything with this kind of meandering, noncommittal, anecdotal response.

do nothing

Of course you can do nothing. You have no understanding of the society in which you live, haven't any idea what anarchy is, nor the ability to think clearly about much of anything. All you can do is provide deceptive double talk.

And your response to refutation is to declare yourself to have made everything clear and irrefutable. For example, when someone points out that groups acting in defense of another may make a mistake in arresting someone but would be responsible for that mistake, your response is that this establishes that "violation of the NAP is necessary and routine." It establishes nothing of the sort. What the person was saying, of course, is that violation of the NAP would be *punishable* rather than necessary and routine as in the society we have now.


Maybe weebles or raceboy was correct in guessing that you're just trying to make your position look ridiculous.

Focusing only on the part of your post

that had any discernible point, I will respond:

A security agency that arrests persons accused or suspected, not in self defense, is acting routinely with aggression, and so violating NAP.

That is the simple and easily understandable answer.

I hate feeding the troll, but

I hate feeding the troll, but why does anyone assume there needs to be "justice" at all no less a gov to mete out that justice? Like all Bill3's post he starts with a logical fallacy and builds from there.

How has our great system of "justice" worked out? Libertarians, the real ones at least, should understand that a system of punishment for retribution's sake by force and violence is wrong. With our own system as an example, they should also be able to easily see there's no such thing because any entity granted the power to mete out this justice will create far more injustice than any of those they pretend to protect us from ever will.

Once again, people's fears and need for "safety" keep them from thinking rationally and begging to give away their rights for this illusion of safety. That's the basic failing of nearly every one of Bill3's posts here.

It's a trap people, stop falling for it.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

This is an example of the "logical fallacy fallacy"

a new BILL3ism.

It is where the desperate commenter hurls accusations of logical fallacy without specifying, or sometimes just naming a particular fallacy, without explaining how the accused committed it.

It is a species of hand waving and red herring, aimed at luring the discussion away from the brass tacks of logic where the sound logician wanted to lead it.

Notice Raceboy didn't answer the actual questions posed in the article, about the validity on NAP of aggressive acts like arrest on probable cause, or trial by majority or consensus, etc.

He is a desperate fool, forced to feed red herrings to so called trolls because if he doesn't, he has no other response and would have to vacate the field. But he's too much of a big mouth to just shut up and take his medicine, so he opts for public beating instead.

That suits us both.