-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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Did you read the OP?

Try again you seem to have mixed up different characters and not really gotten the jist of it.

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

Sharing information they have observed = speaking. Even if they just shouted it out, the political rulers would still find out. I can tweak the scenario endlessly to make it less direct, to the point that the person you are required to hog tie to save your a$$ from the Gulag is in no way rewarded or intending harm.

Try re-reading, don't want to argue with a guy who didn't understand the OP.

Yes, *rolls eyes*

I read it.

You will not get a more direct response to it than the one I gave in my initial comment. Your original post was quite clear and understandable. My reply was clear and understandable. Perhaps you simply didn't like my answers.

Perhaps you don't understand my answers to your questions, or perhaps you think you've created such a brilliant scenario that you can't believe that there's room for someone to say "Nope!". Here maybe this will help you. I was attempting to add a sentence to my last comment as you posted your last comment. It was something simple and went like this...

"The NAP is small and easy to hang onto. I keep it right here in my pocket, and I don't go around rummaging through other people's pockets. It's simply not the big utopian [or anti-utopian] thing you make it out to be."

Your suggested tweak to your original scenario changes nothing for me. I remain unconcerned whether or not those who point or rat me out will receive a reward, or that they think they will or not.

But in your first response

You did go rummaging through people's pockets, metaphorically. In fact, you violated their bodies and hog tied them, even though they never lifted a finger against you. On your view, then, aggression is justified if the parties attacked might speak about you in a way that can endanger you (no one in the hypothetical knows the future, so you're attacking them in anticipation of what they likely will do -- hope you don't think you had psychic powers in my hypothetical situation). You might not want to admit it, but you don't believe in NAP. Clearly you don't. You believe in aggression if it prevents you from coming to harm. Yes?

Well then, this is all I ever wished to prove.

Ok,1# click play... (apparent solitaire)

As you suggest I rummaged through their pockets, metaphorically, I suggest that you have now placed in your scenario that they have lifted a finger against me, metaphorically.

You are correct. I don't believe in NAP. I try to adhere to NAP. Perhaps you might think I'm playing a semantic game there, but that's not my intent. I'm not gaming. Semantics are important to me, and that's why I remain unconfused. If you would like to believe that I believe in NAP, that's fine with me, but understand that I don't believe in aggression. Yes, sometimes I'm aggressive, but I don't believe in aggression. At least understand that.

Here's a test.

I like oranges. However, the only oranges that I like are of the Mandarin variety. Now let's have a conversation about oranges, what we like and don't like about them and such. Are you with me?

*BILL hands John a blood orange*

"No thanks BILL, I don't like those."

"But John, you said you like oranges."

"I do like oranges BILL."

I've given you links to study up on NAP. You clearly don't accept the basic precepts. You simply flail NAP as a contentious widget.

Well then,

http://youtu.be/2es6fLAZmUk

I tried, but I don't follow the analogy

With the oranges, you only like a subset of them. Are you saying you only like a subset of NAP?

In the hypothetical, you said you think it's right to violate the person's rights so that they don't report on you. But while it's possible to like some oranges and not all, it's not the same with NAP. NAP is an axiom, it doesn't have subsets.

NAP is clear. Oranges are not so clear.

The correct statement with oranges is "I like some oranges, but not others."

The correct statement for you would be "I'm against aggression, except in this, this, this, this and that situation."

I don't like blood oranges, but sometimes I eat them. ;)

I've never said I think it's right to violate "the" or any person's rights.

See right there you just flipped from my hogtieing somebody to violating his rights. Your interpretive subjectivity is impenetrably incessant.

"you said you think it's right to violate the person's rights"

Where have I said such a thing?

NAP is not an axiom. It's not NAA or NAPA.

YOU are searching for axioms. You are the one with subsets. You were trying to axiomatically dissect the subset of ethics involved with "pointing out my identity" as if it existed in no other context but the four words you presented.

Here's an axiom...

When I am disturbed, no matter the cause, there is something wrong with me.

Currently you are intellectually emaciated and I'm placing you on a strict diet of fat for the next month, no processed foods, no hollow carbs. That is you must drop the hypotheticals until you get it. You are limited to presenting real life example. Talk about your mother, you and you girlfriend, that time you yelled at and/or punched your brother, that time you served at the office or army platoon doing what you were told [or not]. You have to latch onto something real before you get to go back to your imaginary scenarios. Morals and principles never quite fit hypotheticals. The second reason for that is people that dream them up are always busy tweaking them so that principles always fall short of having something stable in which to manifest. The first reason will dawn on you at a later date if you keep to your diet. If you've fattened up a bit by August I'll let you start using parables, but no hypotheticals until your mind is stabilized, probably in the Fall. :D

you're priceless :DThe NAP

you're priceless :D

The NAP is absolutely an axiom. It is often used interchangely with no aggression axiom!

People don't have a right not to be hogtied?

What kind of crap is this John, seriously. You are an eel!

wiki for what its worth

The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force principle—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate.

With Jon Robb, definitions and logic go right out the window. All about feeling, man! Well that's just all right with me!

Also, the hypothetical in the OP wasn't something I thought up, it occurred to me while reading the real life events of the author of Beasts, Men and Gods as he escaped through Siberia / Mongolia after the Bolshevik revolution.

Yes, I'm a master card. ;)

You are getting absurd with the term "axiom" and rendering it useless.

You have presented something as an axiom, but is it actually axiomatic?

"The NAP is absolutely an axiom."

You have shifted gears into deeper silliness.

- People need to eat.

- "People need to eat" is absolutely an axiom.

The first presents one axiom. The second presents two.

Before we spiral into inescapably digressive inanity, let's nip it in the bud.

You've clearly spent this entire post rejecting NAP. It is absurd for you to claim it as axiomatic. For whatever reason, I too don't recognize it as axiomatic for the purpose of this post. What would be the benefit of my embracing not your reality, but your absurdity?

I'm happy to know you read at least part of the Wikipedia article. It is "generally" sound and well presents the generally held concept of NAP. I don't embrace the entirety of the article, but it serves well as being a general platform upon which two or more people may stage further discussion. Why the wiki writer started off with needless confusion is beyond me, but he did save himself from my utter rejection by wisely writing the words "also called". This is different from saying "is". Sure some people call what is described in the article, NAA. Some don't. Some call cattle "doggies". That might be useful information to some, but are cattle and doggies one and the same?

It is interesting that you were careful to quote the wiki article verbatim, but also present your take on it...

"It is often used interchangely with no aggression axiom!"

Are you passing to me there information regarding calculation from your own personal real life statistics. Have you often found people using the terms interchangably? I suppose even if just you have been the one to often use the terms interchangably, that would cover it. However you came up with that is not actually a concern for me, and I don't mean to deny it here. I'm just pointing out the difference between your words and the words from Wiki.

Yes, my diet instruction was largely tossed out in levity, and I never would have expected to feel compelled to refer back to it, but since you have done as such, I am compelled. I am your puppet.

Yes, I would have done better to clarify "real life example" with "your own personal".

Unless one has the experience of directly witnessing another's experience, one's experience of learning of another's experience is generally akin to the experience of reading fiction. I'm not confusing fact and fiction here, as I am not directly comparing fact and fiction. I'm comparing ways in which we gather information. Your experience of gathering information about the Bolshevik revolution is similar to the experience of reading a Tom Clancy novel. Should you come back to tell me that you have actually experienced emigrating from bloody tyranny, I'll retract this paragraph.

Let's nip it in the bud indeed

Paece

Rule number 1, dont let the

Rule number 1, dont let the non agression principle interfere with your freedom. The opposite of agression would be something like, resistance. Resist!! What kind of whimp wouldn't hog tie a few commies to escape the gas chamber.

Yup

.

Filled full of lies

In a world filled so full of lies there are very well meaning people everywhere ready to perpetrate crimes so as to save the children.

Example:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Crime-Punishment-I-G-Farben/dp/002...
"The construction of I.G. Auschwitz has assured I.G. a unique place in business history. By adopting the theory and practice of Nazi morality, it was able to depart from the conventional economics of slavery in which slaves are traditionally treated as capital equipment to be maintained and serviced for optimum use and depreciated over a normal life span. Instead, I.G. reduced slave labor to a consumable raw material, a human ore from which the mineral of life was systematically extracted. When no usable energy remained, the living dross was shipped to the gassing chambers and cremation furnaces of the extermination center at Birkenau, where the S.S. recycled it into the German war economy – gold teeth for the Reichsbank, hair for mattresses, and fat for soap. Even the moans of the doomed became a work incentive, exhorting the remaining inmates to greater effort."

And:

"Conditions were such that sickness was a pervasive fact of life among the inhabitants of Monowitz. The hospital wards built by I.G. were so inadequate that even the S.S. suggested additional wards be built. I.G. refused because of the cost."

Some advice is offered:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/10420.Aleksandr_Solz...

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

When the criminals take over they mean business. The criminals have their ways of doing things: kill or be killed, and they mean it.

The Criminals create a demand for their services; out of whole cloth (invisible cloth for the budding emperors):
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the on element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

Where there may be less crime the criminals ensure there will be an abundance of it.

Yet history offers very competitive, effective, methods of dealing with criminals, including the nullification of the lies told by the liars who steal government:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

"Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences."

When the criminals who steal government claim this:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Regular old people randomly picked by lot can say this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/business/jury-acquits-pilo...
Jury Acquits Pilot Who Questioned Liability for Income Tax

The devils are persistent:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-th...
Meet The 'Assassination Market' Creator Who's Crowdfunding Murder With Bitcoins

It may be a good idea for regular old people to be diligent.

Joe

questions

I'll take a stab, but some clarification may be required first.

1) Are they in the process of "reporting me", as in, using physical force to stop me and "turn me in?" Or, are they merely informing someone of my whereabouts?

Also, what am I fleeing from? Have a committed a crime of some kind? Just generally fleeing perceived political oppression?

2) See above, but if by "report" you simply mean sharing the information about my movements, I would say it does not violate the NAP in and of itself.

While I agree with the non-aggression principle, I don't think it's the be-all, end-all, but I'll play the game.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

In this scenario, they're

In this scenario, they're just going to rat you out for a reward, which will lead immediately to overwhelming force against you before you can reach the port, and a full stop on all departing vehicles. Basically, you're F'd.

You're part of a group of identified counter revolutionaries being liquidated because the new gang in charge doesn't want potential opponents around. You've not harmed anyone, just on the wrong side of history, like us.

Yes, just report on you, knowing what's likely to happen to you as a result, but never laying a hand on you directly.

Ok..

I'm not sure why you're clarification of my questions resulted in down votes for you, but I digress...

In this case, and maybe in any case, we'd have to say

1) yes and 2) no

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*