12 votes

Why we must violate rights

3$BILL has made a great deal of a silly argument that free law must perforce violate rights.

The short answer is, duh.

Liberty isn't a panacea, and the NAP isn't a magic wand.

In short principles aren't Gods.

In a free or capitalist society with capitalist law there will occasionally be rights violations done to individuals. Occasionally an innocent will be wrongly sanctioned. There is no way around this.

3$BILL is probably getting excited right now. But he will be disappointed as usual.

"AHAH!" he says, "You admit a capitalist society must violate rights!"

But this is the sad and pathetic argument of the statist 'educated' in government schools.

What is the fallacy?

Simple: The claim here is that since there is no perfection, then the status quo is justified. This is the appeal to perfection or a general case of false dichotomy or the excluded middle.

True, it must be admitted.

We live on earth and not heaven. I do solemnly admit to this. There is no perfection here.

The NAP is not a spangly vibranium alloy shield which makes us impervious to having our rights violated, or even more unfortunately, inadvertently violating someone elses' rights.

The problem can be taken in pieces, and simply.

Logically any entity which must violate rights to exist, is corrupted, and cannot claim to protect rights.

With free law mistakes will be made. But there will be no claim of immunity or special status.

Logically you may only delegate your own rights and responsibilities to someone else. You may be sure someone is a criminal. You may act. But if you are wrong, you can't hold up your badge and say "OMG Officer Safety!! FIRST DUTY IS GETTING HOME! I'M A HERO! PROTECT THE TROOPS!"

No. You screw up, and you're responsible.

And that is the only thing you can delegate. You can delegate your moral right and responsibility but you still are responsible. When you hire someone to act in your name, if they mess up it's on you both.

You cannot delegate authority and not responsibility. They are not separable.

Because there will be no state shield from responsibility, there will be fewer mistakes. Which leads us to the consequentialist side of the discussion.

Socialized law must provide an inferior product to capitalist law.

Socialist anything must provide inferior product to capitalist anything.

Rule #1: No exceptions.
Rule #2: If you think there is an exception, see Rule #1.
Rule #3: Profit.

Once you have a socialized monopoly there are only a few ways to increase 'profit'. Reduce quality, increase price, or create problems that only you are allowed to solve.

Historically we know all three strategies are almost always employed and employed progressively more over time.

While in theory one could innovate, this never happens. I think it's human nature.

Only when the only option to increase revenue is competition does competition happen.


So what the discussion really is about is what would provide a better outcome.

Socialist law which has every incentive to provide a poor product because people have to pay anyway.

Or capitalist law which has every incentive to provide a service people want to pay for, more than any other option.

Both will violate rights.

Why? Because we are human and flawed, even by our own standards.

But the utopian bends the standards, and claims rights violated in the name of the state are somehow not violations. We non utopians engage in no such ethical masturbation. We admit there will be violations, and in facing this truth, and not evading responsibility ourselves, not excusing ourselves, we excuse no one else. Without such excuse the violations are much less common.

Evil excused is evil proliferated.

A minarchist may argue there is something about provision of law that makes it special, just like a left progressive argues there is something about health care or education that makes it special.

But this case needs to be made.

And spoiler alert: They are both wrong.

To me the minarchist case is only even remotely plausible in the case of existing aggressor states, that you may need a socialized military, if for the time being.

I don't buy this either.

But it at least stands the initial smell test.

But anyone who has been remotely involved in the domestic 'justice' system which has millions of innocent people in cages at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and who can with a straight face say 'our rights are being protected' by this socialist legal system.. well honestly I don't believe you really believe that.

No one can be that stupid.

Comment viewing options

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

Good post. I hate the

Good post.

I hate the minarchist argument that claims volunteerists are utopians who somehow think that a stateless society would be a wonderland without crime.

I'd take gang warfare and crime over police states, world wars, holocausts and nuclear winter any day.

I'm not sure what your argument is here

You seem to be just conceding that NAP is not valid, since violating regularly would be a necessary and legitimate function of any society. So you're just agreeing with me that what NAP defines as aggression is a normal, legitimate and necessary function of society. This is so not just in the provision of justice, including arrest, trial, verdicts, but also contract enforcement, tactics in war, the definition of property ownership, the funding of all this apparatus, and the exclusion or punishment of free riders and violators of implicit trust and contract in the social organism. You aren't refuting me; you're agreeing with me.

You're abandoning NAP as a valid and binding principle by acknowledging that any justice system, public or private, would need violate it to function. All of these NAP violations that you accept to be necessary are founded on the principle of a group consensus being valid and overriding the individual's claim to be free from aggression.

In granting this principle, you abandon the standard NAP formulation, and you accept the principle that aggression can be justified with a group consensus in which the majority justifies its aggression against the individual on the basis of its own perceived well being.

You have now joined the adult section of the conversation, if you can stick with it.

Ad hominem tag....

called poster a child.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Thanks for being a good hall monitor

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.

Ad hominem arguments are the converse of appeals to authority, and may be used in response to such appeals.

You're welcome...

A better more concise longstanding definition:

(1) appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
(2) marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You implied the commenter was a child. Which is attacking their character rather than using the intellect to counter a debate point. Classic ad hom.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I guess its in the eye of the beholder.

I feel I've always easily refuted Faithkills weak arguments before lambasting him for his poor reasoning. I never accuse anyone of ad hom, so its relevant. If they haven't dealt with the arguments, I just point it out. Those who just accuse or insult are obvious so it doesn't require me to point it out. It is also clear that I engage all the arguments that are on point and relevant, and anyone who denies that is just biased beyond reason.

Thank you for your

response--it enabled me to FINALLY figure out what NAP means:
Non-aggression principle! I've been seeing the acronym NAP a lot recently, but didn't have a clue as to what it meant! Unless it's a really well-known acronym, I try to spell out the term at least once in an article or thread!

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

That was powerful sarcasm

You get iii points. :D

So you think principles are magical totems?

So if I say 'don't steal' and a theft happens then we can deduce from this the 8th Commandment is not valid?

When the government passes gun control laws can we deduce that the Second Amendment is not valid?

When the government illegally listens to all communications of everyone we can deduce the Fourth Amendment is not valid?

So you're a nihilist?

In a court the question under consideration is (or should be) whether the person is guilty of some sort of violation of another person's rights.

(although today of course it's usually because you didn't follow an order by your master, rarely because of an actual crime)

If the person is guilty, then apprehending him is not a violation of the NAP.

If the person is not guilty, then apprehending him was a violation of the NAP.

Yes 'mistakes will be made', but the goal of honest men and women is to minimize them.

Minimizing rights violation is exactly where a socialized monopoly law system can't be justified whatsoever.

One difference between socialized law and free law or capitalist law there is no shield if you make a mistake. And if you make too many mistakes and don't make good, you lose market share and make losses.

Since a capitalist security provider can't ignore it's own mistakes, if for no other reason that it will lose customers, it's incented not to make mistakes. I'm suspect a person tried and found innocent will probably be recompensed. That is a service feature I would find attractive. I would suspect there wouldn't be a lot of capital punishment. That is not something I think most people want.

But there is no incentive for socialized law not to make mistakes. If they make mistakes they can claim they a bigger budget. The incentive is to make mistakes.

There is no incentive for socialized law not to create and enforce stupid laws. In fact the incentive is to have more stupid laws so they can ask for more money.

All of that is flipped around under capitalism.

There is nothing special about any market that makes socialism work better in that market than capitalism. Not health care. Not groceries. Not education. Not security.

What you are really attempting to do is show that because a principle isn't a magic shield that solves all the worlds problems we shouldn't care about the principle.

Fine if you wish to think that, but that means you don't have any principles.

Which is what I expect the case is.

You seem to have a simplistic notion of utilitarianism common to statists which does net out as nihilism.

You think because principles don't enforce themselves on the physical universe that is your justification to do whatever you like, and what you like is always without any ethical consideration and always contextual. You may wish to do what you think at the moment is 'good' but there is no thought to what good or evil is, and in fact you disdain such analysis.

You instinctively know you have no moral or ethical ground and thus ultimately trust nothing but power over others, and you can't even argue convincingly from ethics because you don't believe in them, at least not beyond the crude ethics of the gun in your hand and not in the other guys hand.

Not everyone is like you. But it is precisely because of people like you that governments are untenable. Men must not be given power over other men because men who think as you do are most attracted to power.

Moral people, good people, don't assume other people are like you, or don't assume so many people are, and don't really understand what they are. They are prone to believe the best in others and thus prone to believe your lies. They just want to work, enjoy their lives, and not have their wages inflated and taxed away.

But this will never happen until they stop believing the lies.

Which is ultimately your purpose here, to stop or slow down the awakening of good people.

Senseless jabbering

With all the rich conversations going on with others, I can't justify devoting time to this shlock. Adieu.

Ad hominem alert....

called poster an idiot and "shlock" ("schlock" misspelled - means "trash").

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

It's an admission he's trapped.

It's what he does when he knows he's talking to someone he can't bamboozle and further discussion would only make it even more clear that he's attempting to bamboozle.

Cockroaches fear the light.

There is no reason whatsoever...

to ever imply that commenters here on Daily Paul are "worthless idiots". Sorry.

It does not intellectually address any debate point and is against Daily Paul rules. And it looks bad to outsiders.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Under what conditions...

are you okay with initiating physical force against someone who has not committed physical force or fraud against someone else's person or property?

You stated:

"aggression is a normal, legitimate and necessary function of society."

Under what circumstances do you consider it "normal, legitimate, and necessary" to initiate aggression against someone who has not engaged in physical force or fraud against someone else's person or property?

Fun with etymology:

In the 1610's --> aggression (n.) - "unprovoked attack"
In 1828 --> AGGRESS'ION, n. The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury

When is aggression against non-aggressors "normal, legitimate and necessary"?

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." - Herbert Spencer

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


on probable cause
2-Holding for trial
3-Trial, sentencing, punishment
4-Enforcing contracts
5-Defining property and imposing definition so that the phrase "attack on property" is intelligible and uniform, and so aggression against property can be legitimate countered with force
6-In exigent circumstances, quarantine for a plague, a famine, impending invasion
7-Preventing treason/betrayal to an enemy, such as throwing open the gates or revealing a position, or even "going to the other side" mid battle, leaving with needed supplies or expertise
8-Desertion from the field of a battle
9-Draft under extreme circumstances like a gigantic invasion or massive natural disaster to bring about some kind of order

Those are just a few that occur to me now, maybe more later.

Bonus round:

Contra Rothbard, I think a parent that lets their 4 year old starve should be punished, even though they've not committed any aggression.

I will give you more later.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Ad hominem attack



If your argument were sound, there would be no need to call Bill "3$BILL."

The fact that you do diminishes your argument, but more importantly, it diminishes yourself.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.
tasmlab's picture

I don't think it is ad hominem, just plain ole' name calling

But really, it was barely anything, and BILL3 does it lavishly himself.

Although he's been more polite over the past couple weeks.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

and BILL3 does it lavishly

and BILL3 does it lavishly himself

Yes, and it's very telling how the "rule" is selectively enforced.

Oh please Michael

No one is more of a verbally abusive ass than whatever the hell he's calling himself now.

To paraphrase Rothbard

I attack the argument then attack the man.

There is no fallacy in doing this. I don't say his arguments are wrong because he's suspect.

I say he's suspect because his arguments are so ludicrously specious.

I use '3$BILL' because not because it's needed. But because it's wanted:D

It may be that you have not followed all of our interactions, or more generally his interactions with pretty much everyone here. He's routinely rude, antagonistic, and dismissive.

But best of all exhibits ridiculously and hilariously unwarranted arrogance and superiority.

I love that.

In fact I have made more than one post in support of keeping him around. For that reason.

When we are less than courteous with him, we are responding in kind. Had he kept it high brow I would have followed suit. I follow the lead of the person I am engaged with.

But I have not joined the chorus of those asking to ban him. Just the opposite.

In my humble opinion we couldn't be better served than by 'clever' argumentative statists like him.

I know you are a kind soul. If you prefer I not engage with him I will respect your wish.

On the other hand you may wish to consider what a service our banter does to the debate.. and maybe your hits.

Maybe there is a place here for consenting adults to play hardball?

Because he's playing it regardless, and he won't respect your wish unless you ban him.

tasmlab's picture

I like to imagine him like this


(Not ad hominem, not name calling, just fun)

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football


its for the dogs. Plus one from the George.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!