-5 votes

Does it violate NAP? II

So you've got your bug out bag at your side, swallowed your gold and are fleeing political oppression. Your family is already escaped and waiting for you in a free zone somewhere, depending on you to arrive with your gold to pay for the safe harbor.

You get within one mile of the harbor from which you intend to depart, and are recognized by some ne'er do wells who are hanging around outside the local government agricultural management office waiting for their daily scraps.

They are going to go get the reward money by reporting you, and a pat on the head from the local commissar.

Does it violate the NAP for you to tie them up or knock them out and flee?

Does it violate the NAP for them to report you?

Comment viewing options

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

1. yes

2. no

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

first

honest answer.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

The NAP is a good rule of

The NAP is a good rule of thumb and I try to incorporate it into my life but I don't treat the NAP as a "god". I will violate it myself in any situation where I feel it's in my best interest to do so. I cannot be held accountable for anyone's life but mine and I have accepted the duty of also shielding the life of my family members. If the NAP gets in the way of protecting the life and liberty of those above, I cast it aside for that situation...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Fallacy of the False dilemma.

The argument presented is a false choice.

It not only excludes any of the options that a none aggressive individual would consider, but also sets boundaries that are designed to steer any answers to the desired end of a pre-fixed dilemma.

Thankfully, there are many ways to counter this technique.

1. Return the fixed false dilemma in the opposite context (WARNING not recommended as this would be countering fallacy with fallacy...

Example:
As an apologist in favor of the aggression principle, you are hanging around outside the local government run agricultural management office waiting for their daily scraps, and suddenly you notice a person fleeing political oppression who has made the mistake of thinking he has reached a safe harbor.

Do you risk punishment for violating the rules of your aggressive masters and let him land?

Or do you snitch and gain a pat on the head and possible admission to the gang?

2. point out the inconsistency of the argument...

So what you called a "safe Zone" to escape from political oppression is not a safe zone at all?

3. present one of many possible 3rd options that an individual could consider.

Well, as I now realize that I've been fooled and this is NOT as safe zone after all, I have no choice but to turn away from the harbor and seek refuge elsewhere, hopefully I will find some way to rescue my family from the Statist nightmare they must now be subject to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Cyril's picture

Nice refresher, on point.

Nice refresher, on point.

Thank you.

P.S.
False dilemna is a common technique and is purposely made, deceptive fallacy (while some fallacies are just genuine reasoning mistakes)

Other example:

1) premises

one is either for or against anti-discrimination laws.

2)

Fallacious step : if they are against those, then it means they endorse discrimination.

Obviously wrong: they may just consider it's no government business to deal with discrimination; a case can be made (**) that discriminated people, if also free under law, and with free markets, can just use them markets or even influence public opinion themselves on how unjust and counter productive for society the discrimination they suffer is, by showing how it feels if they return the favor, etc.

(**) http://www.dailypaul.com/320805/black-teenage-anarcho-capita...

3)

Next step:

since it's either with or without anti-discrimination laws, the (false) dilemna comes in (thanks to previous step #2):

either discrimination will be left loose and will potentially spread (in absence of such laws) or it won't (thanks to them).

4)

Finally, because nice people (and common sense in general) find discrimination often questionable

(although, not always: is it bad to be suspicious and discriminate against the well-known brats/wanna-be thugs in the neighborhood? Probably not, maybe that's why eventually someone decides to call the cops on them? Remember... Common sense)

... then, it means nice people ought to equip themselves with anti-discrimination laws, to lower the risks of unjust - really arbitrary - discrimination.

Bam! Invalid argument, false dilemna, wrong conclusion :

remember above step #2, that's where it broke.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

deacon's picture

Kill them both

Then they couldn't testify against you.It would not violate the NAP,as there are no witnesses left to get that pat on the back
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

It is possible to believe in

It is possible to believe in both nothing and everything at the same time. The "NAP" fits in there somewhere, so yeah, I "believe" in it.

To answer the question, though: if someone is standing in the way of my freedom in the manner that is described in the OP, then I would have no moral or ethical problems about doing anything in my power to annihilate whatever or whoever is trying to keep me from where I have a right to be. Manipulation, overcompensation, destruction, bribery, reasoning--these are all tools that could be used to overcome such a situation--I would use anything at my disposal in the face of such evil.

I also believe that

using force against peaceful people, in the context of a social environment in which people are expected and assumed NOT to use force, is the proper behavior.

But like you, I also believe that aggression -- force outside of direct self defense -- is also often justified even if the target isn't using force or fraud.

But once we admit this, we have to have a more open mind to government in many situations, like exigencies in war, for example, is it okay to prevent desertion of troops with key tactical info, or cracking down on travel during a plague, or arresting someone on suspicion, or other basic minimal features of a small government.

I don't think NAP is an inviolable ethical principle that overrides all other considerations. I don't think self ownership overrides a community's right to arrest and try people, or impose a tax in an exigent situation.

It's the anarchists who accuse people like me of supporting tyranny, but it is their principles that are at fault.

You say "Using force against

You say "Using force against peaceful people, in the context of...[etc, etc], is the proper behavior." I really don't think I fully understand this statement--it's my tendency to disagree with you, but I need some further explanation!

Your first three paragraphs rely on the above, I think, so I won't address those until I get a response from you regarding what I've asked.

I can say that, the same as you, I do not think that the "NAP" is an inviolable principle. I think it is violable because reality has demonstrated that it can be violated. Whether or not it "should" be violated is a different question. I hope I'm making sense--these are difficult concepts to communicate so it is natural that there is so much disagreement!

I mean that

principles like non aggression do make sense and apply inside a social contract, in reciprocity and in the context of a society where everyone is at least implying consent to follow the rules. In such a situation, there are laws of which everyone implies agreement, and anyone in the fold of such a context has a right to expect that the others follow the implied rules. Violaters (aggressors) should be treated as deal-breakers and punished.

But outside that context, there is no expectation that people not look out for their own precarious interests, violating whatever normal social principles exist in a stable peaceful legal order.

As for inviolable, I mean that in the sense "should never be violated," not "can never."

Because I want to be

Because I want to be absolutely clear, and so we can further our discussion in a way that is helpful, I have the following question: do you believe that, at least in some circumstances, the NAP "should" be violated? Are you suggesting that the example you offered in the OP is an example of when NAP "should" be violated?

I know these are really basic questions--these are "leading" questions, but I just want to be sure we are on the same page--it's the only effective way to argue!

I wouldn't make a statement

about what should happen. I think that if most people were in the shoes of the escaper, they'd violate NAP and not think it was wrong. Same with the informer. Most people in his shoes would probably inform. Violating his rights or knocking him out would seem quite justified from the point of view of the escaping individual.

I really don't believe in any binding or absolute moral axioms, I don't believe they can be grounded properly, so I tend to look at the situation on a case by case basis. I think the way law and order has historically developed is by looking at the situation and the specifics and trying to come to a reasonable decision that reflects the distribution of power in the society at that given moment.

People are basically just trying to survive and not to lose all their property for their kids or whatever it is they care about, and so between them all they find some balance of their power on the basis of perceived fairness to make as many people as happy as possible and keep the peace.

Governments have typically been necessary to maintain this kind of equilibrium, and defend it from outside attack, and that's what seems likely for the future, human nature being what it is.

I don't think I have the time

I don't think I have the time nor energy to address your whole statement, I'd just like to bite on one point.

You say that you "don't believe in any binding or absolute moral axioms." I think I agree with you. My question is: should we seek these things--should we try to find binding or absolute moral axioms by which we should be governed? And keep in mind I'm not necessarily referencing an agreement based in threats--quite the opposite--I'm trying to provoke the idea of an agreement based in common and voluntary understanding.

I think that what "should" happen is very important and this (what "should" happen), well, it "should'" be the focus of discussion and argument. The "should" should not be dismissed, rather it should be held in the highest regard. An agreement upon what "should" be is not scientific, it is simply an acceptance of a common goal, and an understanding of the means to achieve it.

I don't know if I'm making any sense, but I am attempting to!

I think conflicts should be settled

on general principles as much as possible, and with as much respect going to the individual's freedom as is possible in a given situation. In other situations, less individual freedom is possible, when the group is in graver danger. I don't base it on an absolute principle that is inviolable.

"when the group is in graver

"when the group is in graver danger" we should not apply the principles of non-aggression. Is this what you are suggesting?

I agree that there is no known absolute principle, there is only mutual understanding.

I think

non aggression applies, like I said above, in a context where there is mutual expectation of consent to rules, common protection/enforcement, and breaking the rules is a violation of implied or explicit contract.

Outside of that, for example in a war zone where its ever man for himself, or an apocalypse, a plague, and other conditions like that, NAP has little value. I don't see it has a 'truth.' It is a tool that advances most people's interests in their normal interactions.

But most people support the governmental structure that permits them to interact with each other in that kind of force-less world.

In a world without any government/law/courts, every man for himself world, NAP wouldn't apply, wouldn't be adopted by people. It would be adopted only as a set of ingroup rules for areas where law/implied contract was restored and where there was mutual defense and mutual imposing of the rules on everyone.

First I'd like to establish

First I'd like to establish that I think EVERYTHING, as far as we are able to understand it, is a human construct. In other words, it is impossible to separate existence from humanity. As soon as you try to imagine existence without humanity, you will fail, because "existence" in and of itself is a creation of humanity.

If we apply this tautological truth to NAP, then we can realize how NAP might govern us--we can be governed by NAP via an establishment of it's particular set of thoughts amongst a large group of people who live amongst one another. NAP is not something that is "imposed" in the way that most laws are enacted; it is imposed, instead, by a change in thought. I firmly believe that we create our reality.

You say that in a war zone the NAP doesn't "apply". This, to me, is somewhat of a non-sensical idea. Do you really think that it would be impossible to apply the NAP in a war zone? I think that the NAP can be applied, even in the most gruesome of circumstances, because it is something that exists in the minds of individuals. Those who apply NAP in a war zone, I think, would be some of the most effective players in ending the conflict, because war is ended by people who promote peace.

I definitely agree with you that NAP is not particularly a "truth" according to the popular interpretation of "truth"--it is more as you said--"a tool that advances interests."

But there is an important question about truth: do you think that truth is created?

You could obviously apply NAP in the war zone

and only shoot the guy after he shot you. Probably wouldn't get very far, but it is possible, I won't deny it.

I meant to edit my comment

I meant to edit my comment above in the way that I've expressed it below; for whatever reason the "edit" button was not available to me. I don't know if the few things I've added will make any difference, but I just wanted to more fully establish my point:

I don't think I have the time nor energy to address your whole statement, I'd just like to bite on one point.

You say that you "don't believe in any binding or absolute moral axioms." I think I agree with you. My question is: should we seek these things--should we try to find binding or absolute moral axioms by which we should be governed? And keep in mind I'm not necessarily referencing an agreement based in threats--quite the opposite--I'm trying to provoke the idea of an agreement based in common and voluntary understanding. What "should" happen is based in your personal opinion.

To believe that we can TRY to achieve something, and to believe that we WILL achieve something are two separate perspectives, as far as I understand it. We should try to achieve the impossible while we recognize that it is not possible--this is a complicated concept!

I think that what "should" happen is very important and this (what "should" happen), well, it "should'" be the focus of discussion and argument. The "should" should not be dismissed, rather it should be held in the highest regard. An agreement upon what "should" be is not scientific, it is simply an acceptance of a common goal, and an understanding of the means to achieve it.

I don't know if I'm making any sense, but I am attempting to!

In short...

...yes and yes.

I'm assuming aggression or violence will be employed by those who are receiving the report and those reporting are aware of that fact.

I never saw the NAP as anything more than a good principle to live by, like turning the other cheek or don't pee into the wind.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Perhaps I made the scenario a bit too stark

In its black and white characters. I'll tweak it a bit for your sake.

Instead of the informers knowing what will happen, perhaps they know nothing about the details of why you're fleeing or why the authorities are after you. But if the authorities come and ask them if they saw you pass, they will not lie, as they are simple folk and don't want to get dragged into it. Plus they don't know you.

In that case, is it aggression (wrong on NAP) to disable them, knowing they are going to get you killed?

Is it aggression for them to inform on you?

Seems to me they aren't committing aggression at all, and you would be. But I don't think you aggression would really be wrong.

Point being, NAP is not a sound basis for deciding the rightness of an action, and sometimes aggression is justified based on the harm that will come about if it is not done.

Cyril's picture

Intellectual masturbation can be fun

Intellectual masturbation can be fun, but empirical observation is a great teacher, too - accessible to anyone in good will to learn.

If you're really so undecided about your own opinion re: the NAP, I can recommend you the following interesting experiment:

fly over to North Korea, try to become an outspoken dissident of the regime over there for a while, preaching against it around you - "just for fun" (and, well, if you can do so past just the 1st 24 hour-long of your presence - I bet quite picturesque, in their context) then try to flee them, your oppressors-to-be, shortly thereafter (promise!)

Hopefully, you'll find out about what's exactly behind the NAP for yourself.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

This is not pertinent

to the discussion. I don't see Americans as particularly more non conformist than North Koreans when it comes to sacred political doctrines. That's just the nature of the beast.

And it has zip to do with NAP. If a false doctrine like NAP so sacred to you that you have to make snide and irrelevant remarks, nothing I can do about it.

Cyril's picture

Well, YOU have decided it is a false doctrine.

Well, YOU have decided it is a false doctrine.

Good for you apparently, to be prolific in writings.

But there are millions of other people who beg to differ, and don't need to use fallacies to justify a principle they are capable to apply for themselves (and the peace of others) naturally.

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

There are not millions of people who believe

in anarchocrap.

The few thousand who do can't answer simple contradictions in it, so their belief is clearly silly. If you believed NAP, you would say the person is wrong to tie up the other person for his free speech. Speech is not aggression; knocking out and tying up is.

Cyril's picture

Please, prove that: the NAP = "anarchocrap"

Please, prove that:

the NAP = (so called) "anarchocrap"

So far, you have failed, after months of attempts.

I'm not even sure where/when/how/why you saw any correlation between the two, although I could speculate about it that you, possibly, *really* want to justify the sort of aggression that some ideologies deem necessary "for a better society".

You do know I am not even an advocate of anarchy (simply because I am not sure I am on par with what some denotate exactly by that noun), right?

However, I regard the NAP as absolutely necessary to grasp and natural, in a rational, humane society, as agreeing that 1 + 2 = 3, in basic arithmetic.

Not 2, not 0, not 4.

And accessible to a 5 year old, btw.

No need for getting oneself a PhD, no more than the NAP would require a peace Nobel Prize to start defending it without shame.

Cheers,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Because the vast majority

of anarchists in the libertarian movement are Rothbardians, as opposed to other branches (vintage European turn of the 20th century bomb throwing anarchists, Emma Goldman-ites, anarcho-syndacalist Chomskyites, communist and socialist anarchists, anti World Trade vandalists, etc. Lots of dopes call themselves anarchists.)

There are closely related Hoppean and other ethics-based libertarian anarchists who orbit Austrian economics and fit neatly into the Rothbard fold. Often they will harken back to earlier 19th century thinkers like Bastiat or Spooner or the abolitionists or Menchester school liberals et all. But these are just grist for Rothbard's creeky mills.

I have addressed Freidmanite consequentialist anarchists elsewhere without regard to NAP, and they are far less proliferate or obnoxious.

The dominant Rothbardian sect are obnoxious moral bores who root their demands that everyone abandon functional society and law and accept anarchism on their non-aggression principle + Rothbardian theory of property, and the related concept of self-ownership grounding NAP. These are philosophically vacuous concepts and childish in their naivete.

Since these are the most popular faulty views around here and the hanging fruit, I focus most of my leisurely picking at their tree. The tree of not-knowledge, as it were.

And because they muck up the Daily Paul so, and shout down intelligent discourse among the other segments of the site's membership, like paleocons and minarchists and free thinking open minded people generally.

Cyril's picture

Sorry, my bad, I thought I had mentioned

Sorry, my bad, I thought I had mentioned already:

I couldn't care less about all this logorrhea around ideologies in "-isms" and "-ians".

Plus, all of this is only made of statements of your opinion, and barely makes any sense to me.

(When do you plan to back any of these statements up? Not that I would be interested, but others might be.)

Thus, anyway, this is only drifting off-topic from the very subject you (pretended?) to care about:

the NAP.

In various disguises of hypothetical scenarios you keep inventing, you keep asking if there's anything or everything wrong with the NAP - and my personal answer is "no", there is nothing wrong with it.

This doesn't mean it is easy to follow if only at the individual level, but it does mean, IMO, that it is indefensible to not
defend it, precisely - as a good, positive principle for a peaceful society where it's each and every individual with their rights that counts, and not your conceptions and plans only.

Sincerely,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

To begin with, anarchism

is already intellectual masturbation. That ought to be clear. But this masturbation is disrupting the wonderful intellectual discourse that could be occurring here, so I enjoy disrupting it.

As to NAP, if you had read the reply I just gave, I explained clearly that NAP is the grounding for Rothbard's anarchism, which dominates libertarian anarchism. Hence the focus. If you don't find this interesting, go somewhere else. Plenty of threads. My job isn't to make your time on the Paul as an anarchist interesting.

Cyril's picture

Seriously?

Seriously?

1)

Does it violate the NAP for you to tie them up or knock them out and flee?

Do you really need to ask here if fleeing from oppression would violate the NAP?

Let's give a try at a broader audience, shall we?

How about asking the survivors among those:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/17/world/cambodians-in-pol-po...

?

(if any)

2)

Does it violate the NAP for them to report you?

What's your personal guess?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius