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.

Comment viewing options

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

Oh, now I see what you meant.

I overlooked the link at the top.

Yes, I was agreeing that for justice in a specific instance (you just misinterpreted my meaning of justice as some kind of platonic form of 'all justice as such') it will often require violation of NAP.

The point being that NAP cannot permit justice to be done in cases that require arrest or capture by a third party on suspicion or accusation, since these are not self defense, but aggression.

Sorry for the confusion with where your confusion was.

It's okay, I remain uninfected.

You resolved the "justice" contention more than adequately.

Now I can move on to the violation of NAP not permitting justice in your chosen cases. We have simple disagreement in what constitutes self defense.

Capturing a apparently rabid dog is to engage self defense, even if that dog turns out to not be infected with rabies.

I digress here, but even if that dog is not technically rabid but merely confused for some other reason, it may also be a benefit to that dog, to be captured.

Dogs are not humans.

Humans have rights on NAP. You can't point to a presumably innocent person and say he's suspicious and then attack him. He's justified, you are not.

If you use humans in your example, you're stating its okay to kidnap people who look like suspects.

Well, this may be your opinion, and that's cool beans. But it's not self defense, no one is attacking you, you aren't capturing someone who attacked you and fled. It violates NAP.

Even if you're personally convinced beyond doubt that a person is guilty, you don't have jurisdiction to go attacking people, no one has vested you with that authority or responsibility.

If it later turns out you caught a murderer, you may get exonerated for your aggression and NAP violation by the actual law courts with valid jurisdiction, but at the time you took the action you committed aggression.

In order for you to be exonerated, there have to be valid law courts who do have the authority to capture suspects, and who then let you go free.

On NAP, no one has the authority to commit aggression or exonerate, even if the suspect did turn out to be guilty. No one besides the victim or eye witnesses can act in defense against the attacker. Once the attack is over, if the attacker flees and is spotted later, it is no longer self defense.

At that point, it is a new attack on the basis of a claim of prior aggression, and no punishment can ever be 'defensive.' It is retributive or punitive.

Punishment will be based on the evidence, which can never be in a preponderance equal to the knowledge of the actual victim who was acting defensively at the time.

To sat that a group of people have the right, the jurisdiction, to judge others guilt, is merely a reification of the principle of group consensus over individual liberty.

No such jurisdiction can exist on anarchist to even enforce claims of aggression; to claim such jurisdiction is in violation of the accused' right not to be molested on the basis of accusation.

Self defense is justified on NAP, not third party retribution or judgment. Some other principle, involving the validity of consensus and jurisdiction by a group, is required to permit retributive justice. Whatever this principle is, it must violate NAP as normally formulated.

Neither are land mines.

Dogs are not humans.

Irrelevant!

Dogs' rights are not relevant to my point. A rabid dog loose in my neighborhood is a threat to my security, so is a child pointing a gun at me, so is a large rotting tree standing next to my house, etc.

In dealing with such threats we clearly act in self defense.

Please, at least concede that any difference we may bare is in the minutia of how we deal with such threats.

Your example was a rabid dog

as an analogy to a suspect.

The dog has no rights; shoot the f0cking thing.

The human has rights on NAP; your suspicion has no validity in violating his rights. i.e., Don't f0cking shoot him.

Where is the confusion?

If you're comparing the rabid dog to a human with a gun pointing it at you, fine, I agree with that. You should neutralize the threat.

But according to NAP, he hasn't committed aggression, and should be released. No victim, no crime, as the lovely Josie the outlaw says.

A drunk driver is recklessly endangering pedestrians and drivers, and the guy pointing the gun around is doing the same. There's no proof either would ever have harmed anyone, and there are no victims.

NAP says they walk, and the person who attacked them did so aggressively, since they were not violating anyone's rights.

Where is the confusion?

The confusion is yours.

The dog has no rights; shoot the f0cking thing.

The human has rights on NAP;

Yes, NAP is my gig. I will not shoot the dog if it is not a threat. If it is a threat, I might. If I individually determine it to be an imminent threat, I will defend myself, and I ain't gonna fire up the DP to ask you or any collective if it's okay before I act in self defense.

If you're comparing the rabid dog to a human with a gun pointing it at you, fine, I agree with that. You should neutralize the threat.

Yes! Bingo! Simple!

But according to NAP, he hasn't committed aggression, and should be released. No victim, no crime, as the lovely Josie the outlaw says.

Not enough information. If someone points a gun at me I might say, "Hey, watch it buddy!" If someone points a gun at me and says, "Give me one good reason I shouldn't pull this trigger!" I would engage the best means available to me for self defense, even if it meant shooting him first.

There's no proof either would ever have harmed anyone, and there are no victims.

I find it odd that you had no quarrel with my using the term "threat". Guess what? When "proof" is provided, "threat" ceases to exist. Threat ends in either proof or neutralization. Your choice. My choice.

The guy running around pointing the gun

is already convicted by his own actions.

While NAP is impotent to handle this fact, since he hasn't committed aggression, it is still a fact that there is no uncertainty that he is a threat (just like the drunk driver, who you ignored, wisely).

However, this has no bearing on the individual minding his own business who fits a description of a suspect or is pointed to by a supposed witness. He is not threatening anyone, and it is never self defense to attack him.

The guy with the gun is irrelevant to the general issue of arresting suspects who aren't actively engaged in aggression or threat thereof, which, after all, was the topic under dispute.

NAP is personal, not some grandly binding collective ethic.

The first part of your comment is concerned with what I failed to directly reply to in your previous comment.

But according to NAP, he hasn't committed aggression

The NAP is about my aggression. [We're back to russellmeansfan's post now]. The NAP is a personal moral principle. It's not party to a body of law used to judge others. This is why, from my perspective, I remain unconcerned with distinguishing threats in categories of tree, dog, or human. When someone points a gun at me I am not concerned with whether or not he adheres to or is violating NAP. What's more, is that I have never personally run across any advocate of NAP who has tried to promote it as some sort of thing that should become specifically legal, like one could or should be fined or thrown in jail for the pretentiously specific violation of NAP. In fact, it's tends to be the opposite. "Hate crimes" is a good analogy if not an exact example.

While NAP is impotent to handle this fact...

Yes, I agree. NAP is not meant for handling those facts.

NAP has nothing to do with my preventing you or anyone else but me from engaging aggression.

I see threats merely as threats. I don't waste my time breaking down , categorizing, or measuring levels of aggression when threatened. I certainly measure levels of threat. Should I mention to someone, "Hey, I think you were being quite aggressive there." It is the same kind of feedback as, "Hey, I think you were really funny there."

"Aggressive" is like "insipid". I also care to not be insipid. As far as others go, I've learned to avoid insipid people as well as aggressive people.

Hey, how about the NIP?

...but who would care? :D

lol

NAP is part of a grandly binding ethic. That's precisely what it is, supposedly applying to everyone, everywhere, at all times, as valid a priori, coming from self ownership of sentient creatures.

I give you the opportunity to abandon NAP, if you want.

The NAP isn't just about your aggression, it's about how everyone relates in society, and what the proper way is. It concerns everyone's aggression. It hopes that agencies which choose to enforce NAP only rules proliferate, assuming people will embrace them.

You are basically engaged in eel-like behavior right now, attempting to retreat to a defensible perimeter, so that you can survive this exchange, only to re-expAnd later like a retarded sponge with the fallacies you are unable to defend directly right now.

You claim not to be concerned with the differences between your response to a threatening mosquito and a threatening man, but this is mere rhetoric, and weak!

Your treatment of a potentially threatening mosquito and a potentially threatening man are obviously very different, I would hope.

You swat the mosquito on a small chance of threat.

With men, you aren't going to swat or kill them without certainty, on NAP.

A third party agent, either arresting or sentencing, is not going to swat a human without certainty of their deserving it.

On NAP, in order for someone to be justified in capturing or killing a suspect, he must be just as certain as if he was himself witness or victim to the aggression of the accused.

I contend that only victims and witnesses can ever be this certain, and so can swat people in retribution. But no others.

Self defense during the act of the threat is obviously different. The person acting in self defense knows the danger to himself of a person pointing a gun.

But, on NAP, its not aggression. No victim, no crime.

A NAP enforcing agency would have to hold you to demand restitution if you arrested the person pointing the gun, since he did no harm.

But it would also be committing aggression to do so, since it didn't know if you were really guilty.

On NAP, you can't ever justly arrest anyone accept a direct attacker.

NAP does not include or demand any definition of what constitutes reasonable certainty of guilt. so, just as it lacks any definition of property, it also lacks this.

In order for NAP to be valid, you need to support the standard or generally accepted legal principle 'reasonable doubt' and jury trial, as being just grounds for attacking a suspect (grand jury suspicion), and so NAP would then extend to cover minarchist states, if it included the acceptance of reasonable doubt of a jury trial.

Ideally, the stupid phrase NAP would just be dropped with a reformulation that included some specific definition of property, and some specific definition of specific reasonable doubt threshold, some clause permitting the third party agent to act as avenger in behalf of an alleged victim, etc.

This new principle could claim to be reasonable, since NAP is wiped by one BILL3.

I forget that I'm "defending"

I forget that I'm "defending" anything here, but I concede to doing as such with minor points along the way. I'm reminded that I recently told you why I'm here jumping into your dialectic world again. That was to give you my [sort of a libertarian] perspective on the concept of "morality". I haven't allowed you to peg me yet into one of your many categories. I'm not here to defend anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, nor am I here to defend NAP, although I find myself quite happy to defend NAP here as it is a stepping stone on the way for your getting my perspective on what's "moral".

I have no problem with the NAP in it's generally conceived form [or defending it as such]. Walter Block's notion of NAP is just fine with me. I bring up Walter because he is a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist. I bring that up to make the point that NAP is conceptually separate from anarcho-capitalism. Many minarchists and statists also embrace NAP. I don't specifically support NAP as an anarchist or anything else. It would be completely unnecessary and distracting as such. What's funny though, is that the more statist one is, the more one will conflate the concept of NAP.

I don't find my political leanings particularly relevant to NAP or morality, but heck, on another day I could just as easily try to convince you that they are. Changes of context can be subtle, and yes I'm as eel-like as weebles. :D

Since it might matter to you I'll give you my perspective on where I fit into the political picture, my point on the grid. I'm what David Boaz might call a socialist.

I watched that Helfeld/Block debate and thought that Block wiped the floor with Helfeld's marbles. Helfeld is not a good debater, and the points he used to defend his minarchist arguments were terrible. When it was all said and done though, I found myself philosophically more aligned with Helfeld than I had thought previously.

Your treatment of a potentially threatening mosquito and a potentially threatening man are obviously very different, I would hope.

Yes they are. They present clearly differing levels of threat to me. I still remain ultimately unconcerned with evaluating their respective levels of specifically aggressive states of being. For all I know the mosquito is mustering all the aggression available in the universe to attack me. Perhaps the man is simply a bit carelessly drunk and shaking his fist at the gal behind me [his ex]. I will naturally determine the man to be the greater potential threat.

By the way, I don't always swat mosquitos when given the opportunity.

A NAP enforcing agency...

That's an absurd concept, "NAP enforcement agency", more absurd than even the DEA.

Aggression is not a "crime". An act of aggression may certainly result in crime, and certainly many argue that there is no crime without an act of aggression, but aggression remains not equivalent to crime.

NAP does not include or demand any definition of what constitutes reasonable certainty of guilt.

Very true.

NAP has nothing to do with guilt specifically whatsoever.

I have no idea why you keep trying to make it so.

Any force used

outside of self defense violates NAP.

To justify non self defensive force (arrest, trial) will require other axiomatic truths.

These can't violate NAP, if NAP is true.

They do violate NAP if they permit force outside of self defense.

Therefore, NAP is wrong or they are wrong.

two points

Arrest and trial exist within the concept of self defense. In the broader context you will find "plaintiff" to actually be the "public defender".

When you strip all the crap notions away from judicial function, crap like "punishment", you will see that all judicial function is layered atop an impetus of defense against threat or manifestation thereof.

Our use of language, evolving figures of speech, has often left us shortsighted and loose from our origins. In terms of morality, the term "wrong" becomes useless when it is no longer traceable to that particular "thing" which is shown to be wrong. In moral terms that "thing" must always refer to at least one human being. Pure objectivism hovers outside the realm of ontology. For murder or rape to be "wrong" one must show evidence that at least one individual has fallen into the state of being wrong.

Breakfast.

I think I'm a bit hypoglycemic. I have determined that it is "wrong" for me to skip breakfast. This is a figure of speech. It is not specifically my skipping of breakfast that is "wrong". It is me that is wrong in the afternoon after I've skipped breakfast.

NAP is neither right nor wrong. Only you and I can be right or wrong. Aggression is neither right nor wrong. Only you and I can be right or wrong. Force, or the use thereof, is neither right nor wrong...

"It" is not wrong for me to aggress against another. I am wrong to aggress against another. "It" is not right for me to love people and eat breakfast. I am right to love people and eat breakfast. When I am an asshole toward those about me I end up feeling like crap, just as I feel like crap having not eaten breakfast.

In regard to morality the terms "right", "good", "sane", "healthy", and "happy" all refer to the same thing, the same state of mind or being. The same is true for the terms "wrong", "bad", "insane", "unhealthy", and "sad". "Moral" points to the former grouping. "Immoral" points to the latter grouping. Such terms are rather exhaustive in our evolving lexicon, and they all suggest subtly different aspects, but they all fall into one of two general categories as moral terms.

This is not exclusively a libertarian perspective on morality, but it is at the core of why some libertarians argue that if no one is "hurt" there is no crime.

Lots of inexact verbiage

wanderings, diversion, etc.

This is always welcome. But as far as the point, no, it's not self defense to attack someone on suspicion.

Your verbiage has escalated

Your verbiage has escalated to the point of "attack". ;)

I know

I'm a backslider.

Correct/agreed...

"JUSTICE -- 1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due; practical conformity to the laws and to principles of rectitude in the dealings of men with each other; honesty; integrity in commerce or mutual intercourse."

Justice does not require injustice to exist. Justice exists when the right or good thing occurs.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Holy crap did you ever study logic?

Because you got ripped off.

First off let's never forget socialized monopolies must always provide inferior products. The incentive of socialized monopolies is to create problems so they can demand resources. When you pay a capitalist firm to solve a problem their profit depends on satisfying you. When you pay a socialist monopoly their 'profit' depends on you having ever more problems. A mechanic may think to sabotage your car, but then you may never go back.

With socialism there is no place else to go, and if you are allowed to go somewhere else for the service, you still have to pay for the non service from the monopoly.

No conceivable market is immune to this economic reality. Because markets are made of people and people are resource seeking. If the ability to exclude competition exists they will do so, and once they have done so they can only increase 'profit' by reducing quality, increasing price, or creating problems only they are legally allowed to 'solve'.

So you're already done at this point. You're making the case for a socialized monopoly.

But let the fun continue!

so you claim that it isn't the number but the unanimity of their decision.

Yes that's what I said. You're the one who used the phrase 'arbitrary number' to imply it was untoward and irrational.

you have not given us any basis for why unanimous consent is a valid basis for a group to deny the rights of an individual.

Because 110% only works in sports. If we're involved in the business of violating rights I like to be safe as possible. I understand you're ok with an 'arbitrary number'.

If unanimity has the property of making valid the seizure and imprisonment of a person, then the unanimity of three people is just as unanimous as twelve

Answered before you asked. We have a greater unanimous requirement for crimes with more serious sanctions. That makes sense to me. It's not perfect but if you can convince 12 people without one dissent, you have a strong case.

then you grant the validity of the principle of consensus of a group as legitimate for the denial of liberty to individuals.

Neglecting the fact you do keep using consensus, leaving off the important qualifier unanimous a typical deceitful conflation for you..

How else do you propose? Who or what do you think will be the mechanism for justice? Computers? Angels?

So yeah sure, I think the strictest standard possible makes sense.

Unanimity.

You seem to be admitting that for justice to exist, people have to in fact arrest others on suspicion or accusation, thus violating NAP; they must subject them to trial and verdict by group consensus, and they have to sentence punishment.

There's that tricky word consensus again. Try unanimity.

I know you think you were clever here but this won't get you anywhere:D

No I don't seem to be admitting anything. Yeah sure people need to be arrested when suspected of wrong doing. For injustice to be rectified as much as possible, I am asserting we need courts. Now capitalist innovations may come up with better solutions, but for now, yes, courts.

But you are begging a question.

How do you know it's a violation of the NAP? We don't. That is the question trying to be determined. It's not a violation of the NAP if the guy is a murderer, is it?

So we are dealing with imperfect knowledge and so we have a system that requires unanimity to minimize the chance of error. Who has violated rights and who has not is the question. If they have done wrong, it was not wrong to arrest them. If they have not done wrong, then the right violation did happen, (it happened even if he was guilty) but it was minimized by the system, which it is intended to do. You got arrested, in the light of reason the truth hopefully comes out, and you don't get extrajudicially lynched.

But just to be clear, the NAP isn't a magical crystal ball. It's a principle. It doesn't give me a detect evil spell or Santa Claus sense to know who has been bad or good.

But it does tell us one thing. We can't have a state that depends on theft and murder and then claim it is in the business of 'providing justice'. Logically that is insane.

We also know economically, ie from a utilitarian perspective, socialized monopolies are vastly inferior in all ways from the consumer standpoint.

Your response

is a luxuriant cornucopia of bullshit and diversion from any of the actual points of the post, or of the comment. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

The guy is a red herring

The guy is a red herring machine, unreal.

Ventura 2012

Points were all addressed

You don't like the answers. And you don't dispute them because you know logic is a trap for the symbol minded.

So you insult:D

It's cool. Thanks for the help. Honestly sometimes I have a suspish that you are intentionally making us look good. It seems unlikely because it would be a very subtle and brilliant, and possibly disturbed mind that would pull that off and want to. But subtle and brilliant nonetheless.

You would have to deliberately dumb down your arguments pretend to be barely smart.. but not so much it was transparent.

Not likely.

But.. if it were the case.. man oh man my hat would be off to you. You'd deserve an academy award and a freedom medal.

But my money is on garden variety statist who doesn't know how not clever he is:D

But how could you? You jumped through statist indoctrination hoops and got told how bright you are.

Never did take formal logic did you?

They don't teach their shills logic these days. Doesn't help them.

Cool

.

More f**king spam from Bill3?

More f**king spam from Bill3? This is just ridiculous. How many different threads are you going to start with your pro-statist garbage?

People, don't feed this troll.

"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

Anyone on the fence on this issue

Just made up their mind to go minarchist. All the hate and vitriol is from your side of the fence.

Ventura 2012

Then they aren't rational

Then they aren't rational thinkers and couldn't digest the arguments anyway......just like Bill3.

"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

You didn't make any argument

You didn't make any argument whatsoever, much less rational ones

Ventura 2012

Here is another one: All men

Here is another one:

All men our individuals, responsible for their own actions, and no one else. Right? Men should not be harmed due to guilt by association. Correct?

So are you justified in using force, against Redcoat division 12. After your farm was burned by members of Redcoat division 10?

In other words, should employees of a State, be treated by a different moral code?

Good point

That would be collectivism, and you'd be acting with force not in self defense.

Exactly, if a uniform or

Exactly, if a uniform or badge gives no superior rights or authority. Surely it does not exempt one from NAP? Just because 99 men in Red shirts rob and murder at will, does not mean the other 1, or 1 million in the uniform will.

To uphold NAP, there would

To uphold NAP, there would either need to be severe entry restrictions into the anarchist community unless a contract is signed, or a doctrine of implied consent(as you pointed out) like we have today. The contract interpretation issue would be skirted by the inference that if you are in the anarchist community then there is prima facie evidence that you consented to jurisdiction. Undoubtedly there would be challenges to jurisdiction. This is why it is inherent in the anarchist system that there be a Court monopoly within an anarchist jurisdiction, so as to avoid jurisdictional disputes under multiple court agencies that could not be reconciled without one agency asserting its rights over another, violating NAP.

This is assuming that anarchy would for some reason conform to NAP for any meaningful period of time, a "best case scenario".

So either we have veritable fortress cities that restrict travel freedom or you have something like what we have today. Not worth discrediting our movement to promote anarchy, folks. The best case scenario is not even that attractive.

Ventura 2012

There can't be a court monopoly

or any other monopoly under an 'anarchist system'.

You're begging a huge question.

Why is it imperative to avoid jurisdictional disputes? No it's worse than that, why is it even desirable?

Do you feel a profound need to avoid a jurisdictional dispute over who you have to buy groceries from? Would it be helpful in anyway to the consumer if these disputes were avoided?

As a consumer if TargetSafe moved into the area and offered you a security option other than WalDefense, would you hate it terribly?

If the local football hero and his pals set up their own firm, maybe servicing a community that can't afford WalDefense or that WalDefense won't cover.. would you think this was a problem?

Who but the other firms would think this is a problem? Without the government to convince people monopolies are swell in government schools.. who would fall for this?

And the other firms aren't going to go to war over you the customer. Their profit margins are slim enough, if their employees start dying a lot they will simply go bankrupt. They don't have a pool of dopes programmed to believe dying for WalDefense is the greatest glory.

No ability to print or tax or draft == no war.