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.

Did yew forgot your meds


None of this has anything to do with my post

or objects to a point I made. If it does, quote the point you're objecting to. At this point I feel you're just philosophizing, using me as a jumping off point. But nothing here contradicts anything I've stated or wished to argue. I don't mind being your jumping off point, just don't vaguely assert that you're in any sense refuting me when laying out your own ideas.


Yes. That is the frustrating thing about Internet forums. People rarely respond in the way that you want them to.

You have offered up your philosophical take on the subject, and I have offered up mine.

I find your comments interesting, and I hope that you find mine interesting as well.

However, it is really asking too much for you to expect me to respond to your points that you want a response to, or to even be able to identify what they are.

Among honest and disciplined debaters, there is a method that works better, if you have the self control for it.

You can ask a direct question, and I will respond.

Then, it is my turn to ask a direct question, and you can respond.

And so on.

Works for me, let's give it a try.

Shall we limit responses to one paragraph of x lines or less?


Does it violate the standard NAP for a person to capture for trial another person who they never witnessed commit a crime?

It depends

on whether the captured person is actually guilty of the crime.

If he is guilty, then no violation of NAP has occurred.

If he is not guilty, then a violation of NAP has occurred.

Philosophically, it makes no difference whether the criminal is captured by the original victim, or by a third party lending assistance to the victim.


Now, my question for you:

Do you agree that punishment for a crime, after the fact, falls into the category of legitimate defensive force?

Is that mate?

Kyle, I invite you back to the board to continue. I don't want to prematurely tip your king or declare your resignation.

Edit: forgot to add my next question

Adding my second question at the top:

Is it just on NAP for people to arrest police officers who have previously arrested innocent people in order to enforce some restitution to the innocent victims they arrested?

Chime in here: http://www.dailypaul.com/320579#comment-3426262


My original response:

This contradicts the entire conception of justice wherein a person's acts are just, or not, on the basis of their own intent and knowledge in relation to the action.

If someone commits force in self defense, it is justified, if not, it is unjustified.

This has nothing to do with information ascertained about the victim in a tribunal later, whether he had previously acted aggressively in some other context.

In essence, you are arguing that if Bob kills Sue, and Sue was guilty of murder 25 years earlier, unbeknownst to Bob, then Bob can justify his act by dredging up this earlier crime.

This is obviously an absurd conception of justice, and is analogous to Security Agent A attacking suspect B, and being exonerated, or convicted, based on information dredged up 20 years later at the conclusion of the trial.

Someone else's possible guilt does nothing to determine whether my act in attacking them is right or not; it is just or unjust at that moment, based on my knowledge, intent and state of mind at the time of the act.


No, I don't agree that punishment is self defense.

Self defense is self defense, punishment is punishment. We have different words because they're different concepts, and not the same on their standard definitions.

I'll note that this was clearly stated above; punishment even by the direct victim is not self defense as defined in normal usage.

I accepted your non standard use of the term as a possible explanation for your view, and explained further that this has no bearing on the action of a third party who was not present at the crime; he cannot attack the accused in self defense, even if we extend the definition of self defense to include punishment by the victim, which we have no obligation to do.

NAP Cont'd (Post 2 of 3)

Of course, there is always the possibility that you made a mistake. Maybe the guy that you locked in your basement was actually your assailant's twin brother.

Obviously, you have violated the NAP even though you don't realize that you have. However, once you become aware of the fact that you have violated the NAP, then you must release the prisoner, and compensate him for the wrong that you have done him.

In other words, despite the fact that a simple statement of philosophy such as the NAP assumes that we can know things with certainty, in the real world we can and will make mistakes.

If we do make a mistake and violate the NAP, then all we can do it try to make it up to the aggrieved party.

NAP Cont'd (Post 1 of 3)

You said: " I do think your objections against me are unfounded, I just don't want to come off purely as a jerk."

I don't think you are a jerk at all. I think you have raised a serious question that should be addressed. If a philosophy has internal inconsistencies, and one is an adherent to that philosophy, then one should welcome the opportunity to resolve or explain these inconsistencies, because they will surely be used against you by your enemies.

Now, consider the NAP. What we are really discussing is the use of "defensive force." We all agree that this is legitimate, in principle. Yes?

Of course, this begs the question what constitutes "defense." And this question is answered by one's personal political philosophy (which like varies subtlety from every other person's political philosophy, if you split hairs for long enough).

If you subscribe to NAP, and a guy punches you in the face, and you punch him back, then you are obviously acting in a way that is consistent with your philosophy.

But, what if he punches you in the face, then runs off. You encounter him at some later time. Now, do you have any basis for action?

Is it still "defense" if you walk up to him and punch him in the nose? How about if you catch him unawares, taze him, and lock him in your basement for 30 days as punishment for his crime?

You will notice that the difference in these two scenarios is mainly a question of "the heat of the moment" versus retroactive punishment, or restitution, etc.

Further, the question of "how much force is legitimate" also comes into play. One common standard for "self defense" is that you can respond with whatever level of force is necessary until the offending behavior (e.g. the attack) ceases.

But under this standard, it is clear that you could take no further action that is philosophically consistent, once the attack stops.

So, implicit in the libertarian philosophy is the idea that once a person breaks the NAP, they are subject to force IN EXCESS of the amount required to make them cease the offending behavior. You can call this extra force "revenge," or a "deterrent," etc.

But, the real justification for it is thus: Once a person demonstrates that they are willing to violate the NAP against you, it is reasonable to assume that they would do so again, ceteris paribus. Therefore, by engaging in "punishment," you are attempting to defend yourself from future aggression by increasing the "cost" of the aggression to a level sufficient that it is no longer "worth it" for the aggressor to attack you again. In a perfect world, you would "punish them" just enough to dissuade them from attacking again, and no more.

Therefore, although in a political society, the use of this "extra force" is usually delegated to the government, we must conclude that you would be be acting in a manner consistent with your philosophy if you did capture him after the fact and lock him in your basement.

To conclude otherwise would invalidate the entire idea of "justice" after the fact, because if an individual does not possess a legitimate authority to do this, then they cannot possibly delegate this power to the state, or (more generally) to band together with other people to accomplish this objective.


continued comments

The concept of computing insurance investment risks has become the process done by an actuary.

In the free market of defense against despotism insurance supplies, which there are few competitors, the best of the best offer the lowest cost and the highest benefits.

Setting that aside and falling into argument for the sake of argument can be a decision made by people.

"I would put this in the category of overly abstract navel gazing."

The Icelandic Commonwealth lasted some time, and those who benefited from that free market (NAP) insurance against despotism project can be compared to the Holland example at the time of the American Revolution, the Swiss example, and the American example between 1776 and 1787 as competitive examples of large scale free market anti-despotism insurance policy supplies offered to investors.

Setting that aside to argue for the sake of argument, for for whatever reason the choice is to argue, can be a choice.


No certainty?

No certainty?

That is claim of certainty.

The actual fact of the Topic is well explained here:


When people form up into organized criminal gangs (under any flag of any kind they are still organized criminal gangs) the victims can (obviously and measurably) defend themselves for a time.

That is measurable as a body count in theory only because the future is certainly uncertain.

If there was no effective defense then this many bodies pile up.

If there is the best possible defense then fewer bodies pile up.

It is that simple.

If someone cannot see it, then perhaps it is too complicated for that individual to see.

1776 to 1787

1787 to today

Effective Free Market Government (one of many competitive examples)

Effective Organized Crime hidden behind a false flag, false front, legal fiction, lie


I'm not so sure

We need at least 2 witnesses to a crime to validate the aggression. That may be completely arbitrary. Then again, it might be the sweet spot.

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Deuteronomy 19:15


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

No amount of consensus

all the way out to infinity justifies or validates aggression, on NAP. It is inherently illegitimate, a priori, ontologically. If you think aggression (force outside of self defense) is ever legitimate, then you reject NAP. All sensible people reject NAP.

There is room for a broader definition

Of self defense. Examples were well known when Solomon wrote about the NAP. I called them "indirect harms" here: http://www.dailypaul.com/309557/origins-of-the-non-aggressio...

Aggression when under duress from a third party seems to be the most obvious example. Your claim, though you may not know it yet, is that Proverbs contradicts Moses.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

What if, in a private property society,

X does something that Y thinks is aggression, i.e. a violation of the NAP. But X doesn't think it is a violation of the NAP, or he even doesn't care about the NAP. Y can ostracize or boycott X and/or convince a bunch of his friends to do the same. He can publicize X's disregard for the NAP. But how does Y get X "to justice" without violating the NAP he claims to worship.

By the way, I can't make a moral case for government but I do think that human nature being what it is, the best we can hope for is a highly decentralized system of government. If each town had a government with a monopoly on "law enforcement", the competition between government would result in nearly the same outcome as a purely private property society. Then in a 100 or 200 years, the government will become like what it is today and that generation will have to start over.:(

Describing free market government

In so many words:


Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

To each that I have encountered so far who claim to be "capitalist" their shoe does not fit onto their own foot.

When they are shown how free markets do work, they then prefer their AP (aggressive principle) when they want to dominate their targeted victims.

That capitalist (so called) dogma (hypocrisy) was well explained at least in the following:


"First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

Those who must have, will have, and work to have, invest in, and receive returns on their investment in, Fraudulent Banking Monopolies (Organized Crime), spew forth a specific, recognizable, and accurately accountable set of lies.

They will dominate currency supplies and demands.


He must consent to the terms of the arrest, trial

And any punitive legal recourse he might suffer as punishment.

If he does not then he should no longer be protected by the system that he relies on for defense. That doesn't mean he should be attacked and thrown in prison and have his property stolen, or killed. It just means that if he relies on a system to provide him with defense and doesn't honor the terms of his contract with that system, then they should no longer provide defense.

Your alternative is that we waste time and resources tracking him down and punishing him for divesting himself from that system. Why bother? He has already been excommunicated.

If someone wants to punish him afterwards, and he no longer has any claim to legal protection, why wouldn't they?

Why do we need to involuntarily pay into this system anyway? Why when we don't pay, aren't we just denied the service? Why are we hunted down, kidnapped and stolen from and in many cases, killed?

The group should only decide the fate of the individual in terms of their interaction with them, and what they are willing to protect him from.


Yes, Sea

I have the wild belief that serial killers and child molesters should be tracked down, arrested, tried and punished, even though it violates NAP. Suspicion is sufficient grounds for arrest; trial is legitimate, a jury consensus on the principles of classic anglo jurisprudence is sufficient to decide guilt and sentence.

The perpetrator of such crimes is going to be punished anyway, likely by relatives spending all their resources wastefully in revenge, which you seem to think is just peachy.

Providing such a basic function of justice impartially, without a direct interest or bias, is much more fair and efficient on a public justice model than on your hands off approach + feuds.

If you feel like those people should be punished why dont you

Donate monthly to a "catch a sick fucking criminal" fund for people who refuse to stand trial. That's probably what I will do.


The fine print

"I have the wild belief that serial killers and child molesters should be tracked down, arrested, tried and punished, even though it violates NAP."

Dictators dictate the meaning of words and they are often inspired to change the meaning of words from the original meaning to the exact opposite meaning form time to time, at their pleasure.

When criminals are successfully identified as criminals the POWER to defend the innocent victims is then significantly increased relative to the innocent victims having absolutely no idea who, exactly, are these serial killers, child molesters, on and on.

Examples Serial Killers:




Examples Child Molesters:


The problem with focusing on ONLY the "best" serial killer and the "best" child molesters is the fine print of who actually finances those who are "best" at those high paying jobs in Organized Crime when the Criminals take over Government.

Then there are those who make a living at covering up for those who are "best" at those things, as this army of liars, paid or not, spew forth their tangled web of deception.

"I have the wild belief that serial killers and child molesters should be tracked down, arrested, tried and punished, even though it violates NAP.

In other words a "wild belief" is anything but actually working to effectively defend the victims of serial killers and child molesters as the record clearly shows.

"Suspicion is sufficient grounds for arrest; trial is legitimate, a jury consensus on the principles of classic anglo jurisprudence is sufficient to decide guilt and sentence."

The often ignored risk of false accusation is a hard to fit shoe when the lairs try to fit on that shoe.

When government is founded on non-aggression principles the false accuser is proven to be the criminal and the rule of law defends that criminal with a process that affords that criminal a means by which that criminal can redeem him, or her, self, by settling the matter with his, or her, victim, or victims, of his, or her, false accusations.

"The perpetrator of such crimes is going to be punished anyway, likely by relatives spending all their resources wastefully in revenge, which you seem to think is just peachy."

When the Criminals take over, the Criminals make their crimes legal for them to do, such as spreading damaging lies over the internet, while those same Criminals claim that anyone else doing what they are doing is against their (criminal = aggressive principle) laws.

Easy to understand as:

When we (the criminals) do whatever we want: it is legal for us to do so, and we hand you (the victims) the bills for our actions.

When you (the targets) try to do anything we don't like, then you pay more than the bills you are already given, because now your actions make us work for our pay.

"Providing such a basic function of justice impartially, without a direct interest or bias, is much more fair and efficient on a public justice model than on your hands off approach + feuds."

In Crime Speak that can be explained as:

"Providing (supplying) such a basic function as justice (JUST US) impartially (so long as the criminals define the meaning of "impartially" or "is"), without a direct interest (from the victims point of view) or bias (in favor of any of the targeted, innocent, victims), is much more fair (favoring the criminals) and efficient (moving more and more power to the criminals faster from the victims so long as the supply of victims remains abundant) on a public (meaning targets) justice (again Just US Criminals: not the "public" = targets) model (meaning crime in progress) than on your (meaning the Straw Man I created and placed targeted victims names on it) hands off (meaning anything other than common moral sense or Non-Aggression Principle) approach (meaning proven effective free market defense of the innocent victims from the guilty criminals or due process of law) + feuds (meaning what Criminals do when another Criminal Monopoly is working to gain market share and there is no way, yet, to incorporate that competitor into the non-competitive monopoly criminal fraud and extortion monopoly).

That helps I sure.


Rothbard said...

that the NAP goes back to Aquinas' natural rights theorizing through to the philosophies of the Enlightenment period and including tenets of the more modern Old Right and minarchist camps.

Here is wikipedia's take on the history of the NAP:


Many, if not most, anarcho-capitalist thinkers include enforcement of the NAP in private courts. Rothbard said there must be a universal set of laws that private courts in a free society must enforce.

You are framing the NAP as the only social rule and social construct when even a cursory study of the history of the NAP shows it is no such thing except to perhaps the very few anarchists who are even against private courts and private protection agencies.

Your entire post is based on a dishonest or incredibly intellectually lazy STRAW MAN and borders on pure trolling.

Mature disciplined debating is one thing. Starting petty bickering and arguing is another. Many of your posts seem to be the latter.

BTW, I am a jeffersonian minarchist.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I believe you're mistaken

It may be true that anarchists have unstated premises about what justifies their support for aggression in cases of arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentencing.

But whatever that basis is, it must ultimately be reducible to support for the validity of a group consensus denying liberty to an individual on the basis of consensus.

Therefore, anyone who supports these things supports the violation of NAP and supports the validity of group consensus in defining things like property law, probable cause for arrest, validity of trial, evaluation of evidence, jury verdict and sentencing.

These all violate NAP; they are force against individuals not in self defense, but on the basis of suspicion, accusation, and finally consensus and verdict.

They are not in conformity to NAP, but are in conformity to the democratic principle of the consensus of the group overruling the liberty of the individual.

There is no way out of this, no matter how you squirm.

Yet more straw men...

Ancaps do not forbid group consensus. A critical mass in a free society must agree to principles that allow such a free society to exist. Rothbard said the society must come to an agreement on a basic set of universal principles and law. Ancaps want this consensus to come about by education and discussion and not govt decree.

See my response below that addresses your erroneous insistence that the NAP restricts responses to the initiation of aggression to self-defense and precludes formalized societal schemas involving private courts, arrests and jury trails (YAST - yet ANOTHER straw man).

You are doing nothing but "intellectual parlor tricks" as Rockwell terms your approach...

I am a minarchist and you are embarrassing me and making my promotion of minarchism more difficult. :p

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

All of the things listed violate NAP

Your responses have been mere accusations of 'strawmen' and rhetorical ploys - "I"M a minarchist and you embarrass ME."

Needless to say, such tactics hold no sway.

it's not a straw man

You are correct that learned anarchists have a response to Bill's post. The answer is a monopoly on law in a jurisdiction. But the anarchists here aren't learned. Just see how they fight tooth and nail to defend the simplistic NAP principle that is so absurd that you call it a strawman! totally divorced from reality. BILL is challenging them to actually read their own material, like we Minarchists did. And guess what, me and you read the material and realized that anarchy is hardly the utopia they claim, even if it worked.

Ventura 2012


he is not specifying who he is addressing. And it comes off immediately like all ancaps don't accommodate arrests and jury trials into their approaches. He is putting forth something as a core belief and attribute of ancaps when it is not and then attacking it (a straw man).

The NAP does not forbid arrests in response to aggression against person or property. And the NAP certainly does not forbid a litigant or defendant from specifying to a private court they want a jury of peers assembled.

One big stinky straw man. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Arrests, imprisonment, trial, verdicts

sentencing, as well as contracts, and even definition of property, all depend on the validity of group consensus overriding individual liberty.

All violate NAP, now matter how you slice it.

NAP states that individuals can use force only in self defense. None of the above are self defense, all violate NAP, and all rely on principles external to NAP, each of which is ultimately reducible to the principle of group consensus overriding individual liberty.

My post proves this with perfect, elegant and economizing logic. You offer no counter arguments, but merely strain at the leash, pout and call names.

More straw men...

Show me where a statement or formulation of the NAP restricts response to aggression initiated by someone else against person or property to only physical self-defense and precludes other means of formalized responses in a free society to deal with the aftermath of initiation of aggression.

Neither of these sources include such a restriction:


You are NOT helping the debate for minarchism by making stuff up and then pretending it is true. And just because you yell it loudly here on DP doesn't make it true either.

Ancap schemas built around the NAP more often than not include arrests and trials to deal with the initiation of aggression. Just a fact.

REMINDER: I am a jeffersonian minarchist

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

It says it right in the first paragraph!

It's definitional.

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

Within this definition is contained all of my points.

1) Arresting someone on suspicion or accusation is the initiation of physical force against a person, and their property (gathering evidence; murder weapon is property).

2) Holding someone for trial is the continuation of force against the same person, against their will, on the basis of someone else's claim.

3) Sentencing of such a person to any punishment is continued aggression on the basis of the decision of an arbitrary number of other people's opinions.

4) Doing any of these things to a person on the basis of that person's theft or violation of "property" presupposes a group-consensus definition of property that is above and beyond bodily self defense, and so depends for its legitimacy on the basic validity of the concept of group consensus overriding individual rights to travel (trespass) and forage (steal).

5) Any enforcement of contracts against the will of the person enforced upon depends on the validity of a group consensus deciding whether the accused party actually contracted, despite their possible denial of having contracted.

All of the above acts are aggression and violate NAP, on the basis of the definition of NAP you provided in your own link.

Therefore, I conclude that your comment is a false accusation against me of the strawman fallacy, and is poorly thought out. You offered no argument; you merely accused me falsely of arguing improperly. My arguments clearly stand, and accord with the definition in the link you provided.

This may leave you incredulous, since you haven't actually done the yeoman's work of thinking it through. But I have led you, horse, to water. It is up to you to drink.


Saying that the NAP does not preclude violent self-defense DOES NOT preclude other structured remedies such as arrests and jury trials by non-governmental agencies!

The NAP does NOT say the ONLY remedy is immediate violent self-defense.

Get a grip! :D

Slow down when you read stuff and let it soak in...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~