A new twist on a classic debate

[Maverick]

So I was thinking recently, are the NAP and property right always beyond reproach? Are there situations where violations are not necessarily immoral?

First, I want to ask a question about aggression against another person. Let's say that there's someone you know that is a "bad dude." He hasn't wronged you personally, but you do know that he has murdered one or more innocents. Let's say your friends approach you to do something about this fellow because you happen to be the one best suited to the task. If you were to assassinate this man for what he has done, would you be in the wrong? Even though he had initiated violence against others, would you also still be wrong for intervening, and would it be a new initiation of aggression? If so, what would be the proper course? Bring him in to the courts?

Second, I'd like to pose a question about aggression against another person's property. Let's say you plan to steal wealth from a business firm. Your justification for doing so is that this firm has gained it's wealth through corporate welfare and unjust government-backed contracts that prop it up as a monopoly. Can property be defined as unjustly and justly gained in this manner? Or is it always simply "property" no matter how it was gained? If you were to plunder the wealth of this firm, even though it was ill-gotten from the state, would you be in the wrong?

(Please note that all instances in these examples apply only to the individual level, and are not necessarily intended to be extrapolated to the scale of the nation-state.)

[Theocrat]

The answers depend on whether or not we assume there is a transcendent and moral God Who gives us our rights to life, liberty, and property and establishes a universal moral law by which we can determine what good and evil are in an objective manner. So, which is it going to be for the sake of discussion?

[Uriel999]

The NAP does not apply to family. :D

[Maverick]

The answers depend on whether or not we assume there is a transcendent and moral God Who gives us our rights to life, liberty, and property and establishes a universal moral law by which we can determine what good and evil are in an objective manner. So, which is it going to be for the sake of discussion?

Sure, let's do that. For the sake of Theo's argument, said transcendent God does exist for these hypotheticals.

[Dripping Rain]

imo first situation yes youll be committing great evil. 1st because youre taking the law into your own hands. unless youre an anarchist who doesnt believe in the rule of law. in that case you will be served justice once youre caught
the other situation its also wrong. for the same reasons above. 2 wrongs dont make a right

[nayjevin]

I'm not qualified to say much more than:

force is force no matter the circumstance, and force is generally not justified, but justifiable force could potentially exist.

I'm very interested in some wiser folks' answers to these questions.

[TastyWheat]

imo first situation yes youll be committing great evil. 1st because youre taking the law into your own hands. unless youre an anarchist who doesnt believe in the rule of law. in that case you will be served justice once youre caught
the other situation its also wrong. for the same reasons above. 2 wrongs dont make a right

I very much agree with this. We have a court system to avoid mob justice or, in your example, vigilante justice.

[Maverick]

Oh Theo, wherefore art thou? I'd still like to hear your response now that I've answered your context query.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Oh Theo, wherefore art thou?

You just asked "Oh Theo, why are you?"

I think the name Theocrat answers that question.

[idiom]

Morality should be different for the state than it is for the individual.

The NAP never addresses inaction as being a moral offence for example. If the state sits on its hands instead of intervening, that is generally a good thing. It should not involve itself in foreign wars for example. On the other hand, you see a rape in progress, you should intervene.

While you have a duty to protect your own existence, the biggest failings of a state come from protecting its own existence.

This rule against 'taking the law into your own hands' is why people go to jail for coming to the aid of others instead of waiting for the police to show up.

Re: your first question:


If you have to look along the shaft of an arrow from the wrong end, if a man has you entirely at his mercy, then hope like hell that man is an evil man. Because the evil like power... they will talk, they will gloat. So hope like hell your captor is an evil man. A good man will kill you with hardly a word.

[Kraig]

So I was thinking recently, are the NAP and property right always beyond reproach? Are there situations where violations are not necessarily immoral?

First, I want to ask a question about aggression against another person. Let's say that there's someone you know that is a "bad dude." He hasn't wronged you personally, but you do know that he has murdered one or more innocents. Let's say your friends approach you to do something about this fellow because you happen to be the one best suited to the task. If you were to assassinate this man for what he has done, would you be in the wrong? Even though he had initiated violence against others, would you also still be wrong for intervening, and would it be a new initiation of aggression? If so, what would be the proper course? Bring him in to the courts?

Second, I'd like to pose a question about aggression against another person's property. Let's say you plan to steal wealth from a business firm. Your justification for doing so is that this firm has gained it's wealth through corporate welfare and unjust government-backed contracts that prop it up as a monopoly. Can property be defined as unjustly and justly gained in this manner? Or is it always simply "property" no matter how it was gained? If you were to plunder the wealth of this firm, even though it was ill-gotten from the state, would you be in the wrong?

(Please note that all instances in these examples apply only to the individual level, and are not necessarily intended to be extrapolated to the scale of the nation-state.)

This isn't a new twist, this is the concept behind Ragnar Danneskjöld.

[Maverick]

This isn't a new twist, this is the concept behind Ragnar Danneskjöld.

I had to check the name on wikipedia since I haven't gotten around to Atlas Shrugged yet :o

I think I like this guy though:


People assume that as a pirate he simply takes the seized goods to himself. However, while many other protagonists take pride in making a personal profit from the proceeds of their creativity, Danneskjöld's motivation is to restore to other creative people the money which was unjustly taken away from them - specifically, their income tax payments.

For that purpose, Danneskjöld maintains a network of informants in the US Internal Revenue Service (and possibly also those of other countries) who provide him with detailed copies of the tax receipts; among other talents, Danneskjöld is mentioned as being a skilled accountant. The proceeds from the goods he seizes (presumably minus his operating expenses) are deposited in accounts opened in Midas Mulligan's bank in the names of various industrialists, to the amounts of the income tax taken from them - which are handed to them (in gold) upon their joining the Strikers.

Taking money from the gov, and exactly refunding taxes to various people. Lol, I like it. :D

[Mesogen]

Except that he doesn't take everyone's taxes back, just the few people special enough to join the club, those that are adherents to Objectivism.

[idiom]

Except that he doesn't take everyone's taxes back, just the few people special enough to join the club, those that are adherents to Objectivism.

Why would anyone else want their taxes back?

[NMCB3]

YAWN...:cool: