Violence should be used only in response, or reaction to...?

[realtonygoodwin]

"Violence should be used only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights"

So, no preemptive violence even if you have probable cause? My dad posted this in reaction: " Disagree. Should also be used to prevent a threatened violence. I will protect my loved ones from a suspected criminal even before he commits a crime if there is probable cause. (but violence would not be the first resort)"

Thoughts?

[Pericles]

Some unknown person breaks into my home - that person will be shot.

[JamesButabi]

Some unknown person breaks into my home - that person will be shot.

That is already defensive force though.

Can you describe a situation in which the defensive violence isn't justified as defensive but he would enact in his mind?

[Pericles]

That is already defensive force though.

Can you describe a situation in which the defensive violence isn't justified as defensive but he would enact in his mind?

Pass a law such as gun confiscation or police can search without a warrant. Why should I waste my time and effort on the drones sent to perform such acts when they show up at my door? Better to eliminate the brain trust that came up with the idea that violating fundamental rights is OK.

[pcosmar]

Suspected Criminal?

I will protect my loved ones from a suspected criminal even before he commits a crime if there is probable cause.

WTF?

How do you have probable cause of a suspicion when NO CRIME has been commuted?

Thought crime?
Or is it some worse kind of prejudice?



Thoughts?
Get the hell away before it's too late.

[Romulus]

Tell him he is the suspected criminal, and the govt is preemptive force against him via the TSA and Patriot Act. Ask him how he likes being treated like a threat. Ask him if he is one?

[realtonygoodwin]

Suspected Criminal?


WTF?

How do you have probable cause of a suspicion when NO CRIME has been commuted?

Thought crime?
Or is it some worse kind of prejudice?

Get the hell away before it's too late.

Away from what?

[ProIndividual]

...to baby ducks, they are an islamo-fascist threat...use violence in response to all baby ducks.

lol.

...seriously though, in response to violence or direct threat to violence.

For example: Iran has missles in Venezuela...not a threat. They aim the missles toward the USA, that's a threat. Use violence when aggression is used or intended. Having missles alone is NOT a intended harm, no more than owning a gun is aggression on it's own.

It's like saying having a gun is NO direct threat...but pointing your gun at me IS a direct threat.

So, in the instance of aiming missles or guns, that's okay with me in terms of self defense and force used.

[pcosmar]

Away from what?

I believe you said it was your Dad.
But regardless of who, get away from them.
Get away from anyone that would attack based on a prejudiced.(as you described)

Unless you believe in preemptive strikes based on nebulous feelings.
Else, you will likely be drawn into shit you would not want to be a part of.

[realtonygoodwin]

I'm kinda related to the guy, not sure what you mean by "get away" from him.

[Anti Federalist]

"Violence should be used only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights"

So, no preemptive violence even if you have probable cause? My dad posted this in reaction: " Disagree. Should also be used to prevent a threatened violence. I will protect my loved ones from a suspected criminal even before he commits a crime if there is probable cause. (but violence would not be the first resort)"
Thoughts?

Unless you have state permission (a cop) that will more than likely land you in jail.

Shooting at a person who has a weapon and is advancing on you do you harm is not the same as blowing someone away who is skulking around in your woods.

[pcosmar]

I'm kinda related to the guy, not sure what you mean by "get away" from him.

Ok,What are you going to do when he shoots someone or takes a baseball bat and attacks someone that might be up to something?

I am only going by the statement in your first post.
But that is a dangerous attitude.

[noneedtoaggress]

"Violence should be used only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights"

So, no preemptive violence even if you have probable cause? My dad posted this in reaction: " Disagree. Should also be used to prevent a threatened violence. I will protect my loved ones from a suspected criminal even before he commits a crime if there is probable cause. (but violence would not be the first resort)"

Thoughts?

Threats of violence [I]are property rights violations. My body is my property. If you threaten to damage my body you are assuming the right to control it.

[noneedtoaggress]

It's an ambiguous statement though. Define "a threatened violence" and "suspected criminal".

These don't really mean much of anything specific in the context of this post, but they speak volumes in terms of setting the stage to reach a conclusion.

[Southron]

Wouldn't someone pointing a gun at you be "threatened violence"? In that case I agree with your father.

[dannno]

Wouldn't someone pointing a gun at you be "threatened violence"? In that case I agree with your father.

Pointing a gun at someone in a threatening way IS violence, so violence would then be an appropriate response, or reaction to said violence.

Of course, the next place to go with this argument is the "gun in the room" argument, that nearly all state functions require the use of violence (pointing a gun at people, to pay income taxes, etc.)

If they understand that somebody pointing a gun and threatening you isn't just at threat, but a use of violence, then they can better understand how the state is inherently violent.

That's a great way to turn this argument around on them.

[pcosmar]

What would be the "Probable Cause" to "suspect" someone is a "Criminal" before any crime is committed?
:confused:
Clothing choice
Length of hair
Skin color
Religion
:confused:
(but violence would not be the first resort)
What would the response be?

An anonymous call to the Death Squad. ???

This is a very dangerous attitude.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

What would be the "Probable Cause" to "suspect" someone is a "Criminal" before any crime is committed?
:confused:
Clothing choice
Length of hair
Skin color
Religion
:confused:
(but violence would not be the first resort)
What would the response be?

An anonymous call to the Death Squad. ???

This is a very dangerous attitude.

This.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Im assuming he is saying would use force to protect himself if his family were threatened and wouldnt wait until he is actually aggressed upon. The question then is not of prejudice etc but is he justified in using force to protect in this case.

My opinon is it depends on the circumstances. If the other party is in a position to harm someone but hasnt actually done it yet...ie holding a gun, knife, etc then yeah the force is justifed to protect himself.

What if it is merely a verbal threat with no weapon or imminent danger?

Where is Walter Block when you need him?

[realtonygoodwin]

I asked him for a scenario, and this is what he wrote:


An angry man running towards a little girl - he is holding a knife and saying he is going to kill her. He may be on his own property. He may be insane or mentally handicapped and not capable of knowing right from wrong. Doesn't matter - I will use violence to prevent him from harming her.

[Teaser Rate]

The problem with the dogmatic thinking of anarcho-capitalism is that it doesn't take the nuances of the world into account. Everything is either black or white, even if the way property rights are acquired is fundamentally unfair.

The NAP is a good principle to live by, but it's not by any means universal. There are different degrees of direct and indirect aggression which require different degrees of intervention.

[Bern]

... Should also be used to prevent a threatened violence. ...

Threatened violence is a crime. See "attempt to menace" and "assault".

[Elwar]

An angry man running towards a little girl - he is holding a knife and saying he is going to kill her. He may be on his own property. He may be insane or mentally handicapped and not capable of knowing right from wrong. Doesn't matter - I will use violence to prevent him from harming her.

Stand there with a gun and the second that he steps onto your property...shoot.

[pcosmar]

I asked him for a scenario, and this is what he wrote:

Violence may be used in self defense or in defense of another.
Someone making a direct threat while armed, would definitely qualify.

In the case described, I would likely step in as well. That doesn't mean I would necessarily shoot the man, but I would focus his attention on me rather than the child.

[Southron]

I asked him for a scenario, and this is what he wrote:Sounds reasonable to me but I don't subscribe to the NAP.

[LibertyEagle]

I asked him for a scenario, and this is what he wrote:


An angry man running towards a little girl - he is holding a knife and saying he is going to kill her. He may be on his own property. He may be insane or mentally handicapped and not capable of knowing right from wrong. Doesn't matter - I will use violence to prevent him from harming her.

^^ I am glad he said that.

[pcosmar]

Violence against myself or my home is an easy decision.
In the scenario described,, a bit more different.

An angry man running towards a little girl - he is holding a knife and saying he is going to kill her. He may be on his own property. He may be insane or mentally handicapped and not capable of knowing right from wrong. Doesn't matter - I will use violence to prevent him from harming her.
As said, I would focus his attention on me. I would likely intervene.

However,, what if that child is a thief? He just caught them in his home and is chasing them?
That would change things. Though I would still step in, I might join him in pursuit.

What if it is theatrics? And they are practicing a role in a play.
Do you want to shoot an actor?
I may still step in, but would only be a momentary interruption, rather that a permanent tragedy.

[Don Lapre]

Violence should be used only in response, or reaction to...?






We apologize for the delay. Please continue to hold, your call will be answered in the order that it was received...

[Deborah K]

The problem with the dogmatic thinking of anarcho-capitalism is that it doesn't take the nuances of the world into account. Everything is either black or white, even if the way property rights are acquired is fundamentally unfair.

The NAP is a good principle to live by, but it's not by any means universal. There are different degrees of direct and indirect aggression which require different degrees of intervention.

I agree, and when I get my +rep powers back today, I'll rep ya.

[noneedtoaggress]

I asked him for a scenario, and this is what he wrote:


An angry man running towards a little girl - he is holding a knife and saying he is going to kill her. He may be on his own property. He may be insane or mentally handicapped and not capable of knowing right from wrong. Doesn't matter - I will use violence to prevent him from harming her.

Running towards someone with a knife yelling "I'm going to kill you" is a violent act of aggression, it's the initiation of force, and violence would obviously be an appropriate defensive response.

As far as him "being on his own property", it's irrelevant unless the little girl agreed that running at her with a knife was mutually consensual for allowing her on his land. Her body is still her property on his land and he is violating her property rights by claiming the right to damage her body. You don't lose your property rights because you are on someone else's property. You've only got to follow the rules that person sets for the use of their property. Sitting on someone's porch doesn't give them the right to rip off your clothes, and parking in someone's parking lot doesn't give them the right to smash up your car.

Now another question is, what about this "little girl"? What's her story? Why is she on his property in the first place, was she invited or trespassing? Does she have a weapon? Did she make any threats towards the man and his family? Did he catch her breaking into the families' food storage during a famine? What happens when we replace "little girl" with 6' male? Does it matter?

To conclude, the violence would be justified in defense of the "little girl", if the man was committing an aggressive act against her. As a sidenote, we still don't know whether it was the "little girl" [6' male] who was committing an aggressive act. S/he is on this guy's property, apparently.

You don't need to wait until the first blow lands on your nose or for the first bullet to tear through your flesh to put up your dukes or shoot defensively. That's obviously absurd. If someone brings back their fist or points a gun at you, or comes rushing at you with a knife you are obviously going to defend yourself. And that's the point, violence is appropriate in defense, not offense.

[noneedtoaggress]

...even if the way property rights are acquired is fundamentally unfair.

Err, explain?


Everything is either black or white

Like the story of a good innocent lollipop-licking little girl who just happened to be standing on land owned by an evil deranged homicidal lunatic who is running after her with a knife? Which is somehow supposed to disprove the NAP, even though the NAP specifically states exactly what everyone is thinking... that the man is a violent aggressor and that the girl is in the right to defend herself or have an agent defend her by proxy [brother/father/concerned bystander/security guard].


The NAP is a good principle to live by, but it's not by any means universal. There are different degrees of direct and indirect aggression which require different degrees of intervention.

What do you mean by it's not "universal"?

How do you define "aggression"?

In your opinion how does the NAP relate to different degrees of aggression and why is it inadequate?

What do you propose as a solution?

[Teaser Rate]

I agree, and when I get my +rep powers back today, I'll rep ya.

Thanks, do you mind letting me know how you know how much rep you have left to give out at any given time?

[Guitarzan]

Thanks, do you mind letting me know how you know how much rep you have left to give out at any given time?

Click "control panel" at the top right hand corner of the screen.

With a red dot, if you've never looked in the control panel before, you'll have some nice surprises there that ought to keep you busy for a bit.

[Teaser Rate]

Err, explain?

Property rights are often assigned by arbitrary processes. E.g. In the event of a shipwreck, the survivor who finds the create with the water owns all of it.


Like the story of a good innocent lollipop-licking little girl who just happened to be standing on land owned by an evil deranged homicidal lunatic who is running after her with a knife? Which is somehow supposed to disprove the NAP, even though the NAP specifically states exactly what everyone is thinking... that the man is a violent aggressor and that the girl is in the right to defend herself or have an agent defend her by proxy [brother/father/concerned bystander/security guard].

What about the crackhead next door who has a tendency to get violent when he gets high? Should he be prohibited from doing what he wants with his own body because there’s a chance that he might hurt someone else in the process? If so, then how goods must the odds be before taking action? Whatever your answer is, it’s not a simple one.


What do you mean by it's not "universal"?

How do you define "aggression"?

In your opinion how does the NAP relate to different degrees of aggression and why is it inadequate?

What do you propose as a solution?

As I understand it, the NAP treats all forms of aggression as equal and does not take degrees or probabilities into account. If being forced to pay taxes a form of aggression? It might be, but what if those taxes pay for a police force which reduces other forms of aggression? E.g. Does having an X% smaller chance of getting robbed/assaulted warrant the forceful loss of Y tax dollars? Is the main principle to reduce all coercion or is the principle to only reduce the coercion of government?

The way I see it, there are two main sources of coercions; the coercion of government and the coercion of nature, and the first one is required to balance the second one. I may be wrong in that assumption and a stateless world would be a paradise, but right now, I’ll accept some level of government coercion to restrain all other forms of coercion.

So to answer your question, no I don't have a solution one when force is or isn't justified. I think the world is to big for only one solution to any meaningful question.

[pcosmar]

As I understand it, the NAP treats all forms of aggression as equal and does not take degrees or probabilities into account. If being forced to pay taxes a form of aggression? It might be, but what if those taxes pay for a police force which reduces other forms of aggression? E.g. Does having an X% smaller chance of getting robbed/assaulted warrant the forceful loss of Y tax dollars? Is the main principle to reduce all coercion or is the principle to only reduce the coercion of government?



WTF ?
I have no way of responding to this convoluted and confused rant. It makes no logical sense.
Are you on some kind of Big Pharma medication?

[Deborah K]

Thanks, do you mind letting me know how you know how much rep you have left to give out at any given time?

I just got my powers back so I repped ya and now i have to go find the other people I promised to rep. :D

[Deborah K]

WTF ?
I have no way of responding to this convoluted and confused rant. It makes no logical sense.
Are you on some kind of Big Pharma medication?

Do you have to be so harsh and unyielding all the time? He's asking questions. Enlighten him instead insulting him.

[Teaser Rate]

I just got my powers back so I repped ya and now i have to go find the other people I promised to rep. :D

How did you know when you got your rep powers back?

[pcosmar]

Do you have to be so harsh and unyielding all the time? He's asking questions. Enlighten him instead insulting him.

That has often been attempted.
Teaser is a statist, or at least champions the statist position.
His post are 99% opposed to Ron Paul's known positions. (giving a 1% benefit of doubt)

[Deborah K]

How did you know when you got your rep powers back?

I just kept trying to rep someone until it worked. LOL I ain't no brainiac!

[Deborah K]

That has often been attempted.
Teaser is a statist, or at least champions the statist position.
His post are 99% opposed to Ron Paul's known positions. (giving a 1% benefit of doubt)

Well, I don't see his posts much so I am unable to make that determination. TR, are you opposed to 99% of all of Ron's positions?

[Deborah K]

Sorry for the derail, OP. Please resume your regularly scheduled debate.

[realtonygoodwin]

lol, no problem.

[Teaser Rate]

I just kept trying to rep someone until it worked. LOL I ain't no brainiac!

Thanks, I'll try it some time.


Well, I don't see his posts much so I am unable to make that determination. TR, are you opposed to 99% of all of Ron's positions?

I don't think so, that is, unless pcosmar is talking about Ron Jeremy, in which case, I might have an issue with some of his positions due to my bad back.

[noneedtoaggress]

Property rights are often assigned by arbitrary processes. E.g. In the event of a shipwreck, the survivor who finds the create with the water owns all of it.

Why is that arbitrary?

If there's only enough water for himself and he went out searching for the water while the others floated around idly, is he not entitled to it?

If there's more than enough water, why do you think he can claim the entire crate? Did he drag the whole thing with him, or otherwise homestead it? What if he can only carry 10 bottles on his person?


What about the crackhead next door who has a tendency to get violent when he gets high? Should he be prohibited from doing what he wants with his own body because there’s a chance that he might hurt someone else in the process? If so, then how goods must the odds be before taking action? Whatever your answer is, it’s not a simple one.

No he should not be prohibited from putting anything in his body.
Taking action can take many forms, for instance...

If he's reasonable, talk to him about the issue. Maybe you can work out a deal.

If not you can add security... Add cameras, a fence, an alarm, hire a security service, buy a dog, buy a gun.

There's plenty of preventative measures. Does he have a landlord?

If you perceive him as a significant enough threat, moving to a better area might be a worthwhile option to consider. Because if he's some unreasonable psychotic crackhead then you can bet that no law is going to prevent him from scoring some crack rocks and jumping your fence with a knife anyway.

And that's just to prevent something from happening in the first place without claiming the right to initiate violence against someone to control what people do with their own bodies.

If despite it all, he initiates aggression, you have the right to defend against it with force.


As I understand it, the NAP treats all forms of aggression as equal and does not take degrees or probabilities into account.

So essentially you're saying that because I believe in the NAP, I believe that if someone flicks my ear it's perfectly reasonable that I crack open their skull with a crowbar.

Is that you're assumption?


If being forced to pay taxes a form of aggression? It might be, but what if those taxes pay for a police force which reduces other forms of aggression? E.g. Does having an X% smaller chance of getting robbed/assaulted warrant the forceful loss of Y tax dollars? Is the main principle to reduce all coercion or is the principle to only reduce the coercion of government?

1) Committing aggression to "preserve peace" is a paradox.

"forceful loss of Y tax dollars" is getting "robbed/assaulted".

2) What if I don't believe in a monopoly on police protection? What if I believe that competition and voluntary services and private property can better deter crime than a monopoly institution funded by theft? What if I think police monopolies will necessarily lead to corruption?

3) All coercion. What is the difference between coercion by individuals acting as an agent of the government or an individual acting as an agent of an organized crime ring?

What if a mobster offered you "protection services" that you involuntarily had to pay for?


The way I see it, there are two main sources of coercions; the coercion of government and the coercion of nature, and the first one is required to balance the second one. I may be wrong in that assumption and a stateless world would be a paradise, but right now, I’ll accept some level of government coercion to restrain all other forms of coercion.

Nature is neutral. People are individuals, and different, and find themselves with all sorts of abilities and disadvantages due entirely to circumstance. Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. We are not the same, and government coercion cannot "make us equal".

Equality must be in terms of rights.


So to answer your question, no I don't have a solution one when force is or isn't justified. I think the world is to big for only one solution to any meaningful question.

The NAP is the most basic form of law. It's based on achieving justice. This includes defense from aggression and compensation to victims of crime. Because justice is an equilibrium it means that you cannot use excessive force in "defense". Blowing away a girl scout for stepping on your porch to try to sell you cookies without even asking her to get off your property first is obviously not just.

As far as defining the boundaries of what constitutes "aggression", where you're talking about shades of grey and degrees... that's precisely what courts are for. To resolve those disputes. To discover those boundaries and make those judgements of specific scenarios.

It's the same thing that happens in courts today, laws are interpreted, and boundaries of law are defined.

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't think so, that is, unless pcosmar is talking about Ron Jeremy, in which case, I might have an issue with some of his positions due to my bad back.

lol.

[pcosmar]

Well, I don't see his posts much so I am unable to make that determination.

I've run across him often enough. You would really need to go through post history and numerous threads to see for yourself.
I did not give him his present -Rep by myself.

[BamaAla]

"Violence should be used only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights"

Your dad's answer works, but I think it fits into your original statement. I think many of us know where he was coming from; it's hard to put a finger on what events will lead you to fight, but you know them when you see them.

I'm not a NAP guy, but there are worse things one can practice.

[noneedtoaggress]

It's hard to put your finger on it, because you want to think in terms of using force defensively.

Even the "violent crackhead" example was structured in terms of preventing him from using crack as a "defensive" act against his violent tendencies.

This is the same old "giving up liberty for safety" argument. Is writing laws that prevent a 'violent crackhead' from doing crack as a "defense" against his violent acts, (setting a precedent that people don't own their own bodies), really going to prevent anything?

Is it appropriate to initiate force against other, peaceful people because of this perceived "potential threat"?

Oh and by the way we're going to need to extract a portion of your income from you by force to protect you. If not you can go to jail. If you resist we will kill you.

[showpan]

...to baby ducks, they are an islamo-fascist threat...use violence in response to all baby ducks.

lol.

...seriously though, in response to violence or direct threat to violence.

For example: Iran has missles in Venezuela...not a threat. They aim the missles toward the USA, that's a threat. Use violence when aggression is used or intended. Having missles alone is NOT a intended harm, no more than owning a gun is aggression on it's own.

It's like saying having a gun is NO direct threat...but pointing your gun at me IS a direct threat.

So, in the instance of aiming missles or guns, that's okay with me in terms of self defense and force used.

How can you possibly justify that when we have more missiles than they could ever possibly hope to have pointed right at them....the Cuban missile crises almost wiped us all out with the same type of thinking. The Trident fleet alone carry enough missiles to obliterate the entire planet and they can be programmed at any target at any time. No one knows where they are...if you were a country...you would not feel threatened by this...especially if you were named as one of the "axis of evil" and the new policy of that country was preempitve first strike even though it directly contradicts their own constitution. Since we have many missiles aimed at various countries throughout the globe...don't you think others have a right to "protect" themselves too.....this country has way too many instigators in denial. This path we are on.....a very dangerous road indeed....fate is what you make.

[BamaAla]

It's hard to put your finger on it, because you want to think in terms of using force defensively.

Even the "violent crackhead" example was structured in terms of preventing him from using crack as a "defensive" act against his violent tendencies.

This is the same old "giving up liberty for safety" argument. Is writing laws that prevent a 'violent crackhead' from doing crack as a "defense" against his violent acts, (setting a precedent that people don't own their own bodies), really going to prevent anything?

Is it appropriate to initiate force against other, peaceful people because of this perceived "potential threat"?

Oh and by the way we're going to need to extract a portion of your income from you by force to protect you. If not you can go to jail. If you resist we will kill you.

The line before your last is the problem with sitting behind a computer screen dreaming up hypothetical situations; no person in their right mind just attacks a person for no reason, but those attacks are exceedingly rare.

People have their own "line" that needs to be crossed or threatened before they act violently. I would venture that the number of people whose "line" is as small and defined as "only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights" is a small number; furthermore, I would say that inside that number, even fewer are principled NAP adherents. People react irrationally to events from time to time: crimes of passion are as old as man, people punch people for insulting them or friends, people fight over parking spots, the list goes on.

I'm not trying to disparage anyone from NAP, but I would warn that hinging your hopes for a future utopian society on it may be a futile fantasy.

[noneedtoaggress]

The line before your last is the problem with sitting behind a computer screen dreaming up hypothetical situations; no person in their right mind just attacks a person for no reason, but those attacks are exceedingly rare.

I'm assuming you're talking about:
"Is it appropriate to initiate force against other, peaceful people because of this perceived "potential threat"?"

What do you call it when a police officer initiates force by arresting someone for possession of an illegal substance (say pot) who has no violent history?
What is the purpose of arresting this person?


People have their own "line" that needs to be crossed or threatened before they act violently. I would venture that the number of people whose "line" is as small and defined as "only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights" is a small number; furthermore, I would say that inside that number, even fewer are principled NAP adherents. People react irrationally to events from time to time: crimes of passion are as old as man, people punch people for insulting them or friends, people fight over parking spots, the list goes on.

Well, of course. The NAP is just a law, it simply tells us when it is justified to use force, it doesn't prevent it from actually happening. Nor does mean that people are going to stop breaking it all of a sudden. But neither do laws created by some guy in Washington in a suit.

All it means is that everyone is granted equal rights and forbid a class of people to "legitimately" act as aggressors.

People will still fight each other, people will still have security to prevent aggressive acts, and people will still have courts to resolve disputes. It's purpose is to remove institutionalized aggression. The vast majority of criminal acts are obfuscated by words like "taxation" which conceals their true nature. You can't call it "theft" because that's criminal. So we've got to come up with a word that makes it legitimate for this group of people to commit it.

If, say a drunk (or just belligerent) person tries to start a fight over something petty, the NAP doesn't prevent it. It simply states that the person defending themselves from the initial attack can legitimately use violence to prevent property damage to his body, while the initiator was in the wrong for initiating the violence.

The purpose of the NAP is to decentralize coercive authoritarian monopolies by not giving them special privileges and allow the free market to work and treat everyone equally on an individual basis.


I would venture that the number of people whose "line" is as small and defined as "only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights" is a small number

I'd beg to disagree. Most people don't go out fighting over petty issues, if they did our society would mostly be people punching each other in the face over all the small things people do.

I'm not saying there's not crimes of passion, or crimes out of desperation, or that people don't commit crimes out of petty frustration.

But the majority of people don't go around throwing punches. Most people use violence as a defense. And to defend you, your family, or your home from an attack is "only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights".


I'm not trying to disparage anyone from NAP, but I would warn that hinging your hopes for a future utopian society on it may be a futile fantasy.

The NAP is not Utopian. You're misunderstanding it. If I was "hinging on" a perfectly Utopian society where everyone adhered to the NAP why would I be talking about defense against aggression at all.

[noneedtoaggress]

How can you possibly justify that when we have more missiles than they could ever possibly hope to have pointed right at them....the Cuban missile crises almost wiped us all out with the same type of thinking. The Trident fleet alone carry enough missiles to obliterate the entire planet and they can be programmed at any target at any time. No one knows where they are...if you were a country...you would not feel threatened by this...especially if you were named as one of the "axis of evil" and the new policy of that country was preempitve first strike even though it directly contradicts their own constitution. Since we have many missiles aimed at various countries throughout the globe...don't you think others have a right to "protect" themselves too.....this country has way too many instigators in denial. This path we are on.....a very dangerous road indeed....fate is what you make.

Maybe the UN should write some laws preventing crack missile possession. :D

[Teaser Rate]

Why is that arbitrary?

If there's only enough water for himself and he went out searching for the water while the others floated around idly, is he not entitled to it?

If there's more than enough water, why do you think he can claim the entire crate? Did he drag the whole thing with him, or otherwise homestead it? What if he can only carry 10 bottles on his person?

No, it’s arbitrary if other survivors were also looking for it and weren’t lucky enough to look in the right spot. If my understanding of homesteading is correct (and please correct me if it isn't), the first person that finds the case is entitled to claim it for himself by sitting on it. What other survivors want or need isn’t the issue here; the only point is about the case’s rightful owner.


No he should not be prohibited from putting anything in his body.
Taking action can take many forms, for instance...

If he's reasonable, talk to him about the issue. Maybe you can work out a deal.

If not you can add security... Add cameras, a fence, an alarm, hire a security service, buy a dog, buy a gun.

There's plenty of preventative measures. Does he have a landlord?

If you perceive him as a significant enough threat, moving to a better area might be a worthwhile option to consider. Because if he's some unreasonable psychotic crackhead then you can bet that no law is going to prevent him from scoring some crack rocks and jumping your fence with a knife anyway.

And that's just to prevent something from happening in the first place without claiming the right to initiate violence against someone to control what people do with their own bodies.

If despite it all, he initiates aggression, you have the right to defend against it with force.

In my worldview, if the crackhead attacks someone, then the rest of his neighbors are entitled to call the police and get him locked up. If we’re to assume that we live in a stateless society where the police don’t exist and his first victim doesn’t want to press charges against him in a private court, then what recourse do the other neighbors have against him? Could they rightfully kick him out of his own property for being a threat or would they have to inconvenience themselves or live in fear of his next attack?


So essentially you're saying that because I believe in the NAP, I believe that if someone flicks my ear it's perfectly reasonable that I crack open their skull with a crowbar.

Is that you're assumption?

No, but it would help your side’s case if you guys stopped saying things like “taxation is theft” or “taxation is slavery”.


1) Committing aggression to "preserve peace" is a paradox.

"forceful loss of Y tax dollars" is getting "robbed/assaulted".

Sometimes you have to give up some of you freedoms to secure the others, it’s not a paradox. e.g. I pay $X in taxes to gain the freedom to leave my house and not worry about having it broken into.


2) What if I don't believe in a monopoly on police protection? What if I believe that competition and voluntary services and private property can better deter crime than a monopoly institution funded by theft? What if I think police monopolies will necessarily lead to corruption?

Well, then I, and the majority of people think you’re wrong. And as long as you continue to be part of society, you have to conform to its will. (it sucks, I know) Of course you can always leave society, but you won’t escape coercion, you’ll just have to deal with a different kind of it.


3) All coercion. What is the difference between coercion by individuals acting as an agent of the government or an individual acting as an agent of an organized crime ring?

What if a mobster offered you "protection services" that you involuntarily had to pay for?

The difference is that you can control how the collective, i.e. the government treats you but you can’t control how a random individual will. That control is what makes a government legitimate in the eyes of most political philosophers.


Nature is neutral. People are individuals, and different, and find themselves with all sorts of abilities and disadvantages due entirely to circumstance. Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. We are not the same, and government coercion cannot "make us equal".

Equality must be in terms of rights.

Nature is cruel and random, society doesn’t have to be. Sometimes people get screwed over through no fault of their own and society exists to even out their pain. To what level that process is justified is ultimately a value judgement.


The NAP is the most basic form of law. It's based on achieving justice. This includes defense from aggression and compensation to victims of crime. Because justice is an equilibrium it means that you cannot use excessive force in "defense". Blowing away a girl scout for stepping on your porch to try to sell you cookies without even asking her to get off your property first is obviously not just.

As far as defining the boundaries of what constitutes "aggression", where you're talking about shades of grey and degrees... that's precisely what courts are for. To resolve those disputes. To discover those boundaries and make those judgements of specific scenarios.

It's the same thing that happens in courts today, laws are interpreted, and boundaries of law are defined.

Stepping back to the realm of practicality for a moment, I think your worldview gives courts way too much discretion and would create a very uneven and corrupt society. Let me ask you a question about it though, transactions costs in legal proceedings are presently very high; how could they be lowered to a level which would allow the average person to afford protection comparable to legislation which is present today.

I’ll give a simple example: clean air. If I want emission standards in a statist society I vote for a government which passes certain regulations which are paid for by my tax dollars, let’s say $100 per year. In a stateless world, if some large factory moves in next door and starts polluting my air, how much money and time do you think it would cost me to get them to compensate me for the damage they are inflicting on me through a judicial system? Would it be anywhere close to the $100 in tax contributions?

[noneedtoaggress]

No, it’s arbitrary if other survivors were also looking for it and weren’t lucky enough to look in the right spot. If my understanding of homesteading is correct (and please correct me if it isn't), the first person that finds the case is entitled to claim it for himself by sitting on it. What other survivors want or need isn’t the issue here; the only point is about the case’s rightful owner.

You're calling nature (the environment) arbitrary. What you're complaining about is the circumstance.

You're starting all of your hypothetical actors off on perfectly equal footing and then saying it's arbitrary that it was "Bob" that found the case.

But the fact that it was Bob who was the one that did manage to find the case, and first, is not arbitrary when it comes to determining who owns it. That was the point.



In my worldview, if the crackhead attacks someone, then the rest of his neighbors are entitled to call the police and get him locked up. If we’re to assume that we live in a stateless society where the police don’t exist and his first victim doesn’t want to press charges against him in a private court, then what recourse do the other neighbors have against him? Could they rightfully kick him out of his own property for being a threat or would they have to inconvenience themselves or live in fear of his next attack?

This is just getting ridiculous.

Yes, okay now some person commits a crime, the victim doesn't press charges, the mob considers him "a threat" (or perhaps doesn't like his ethnic background?) so they should legitimately be able to remove him from of his own home.

Is that what you're getting at?

Why stop at taking his home? Can't the mob just kill him, since he's obviously a potential "menace to society".


No, but it would help your side’s case if you guys stopped saying things like “taxation is theft” or “taxation is slavery”.

Help do what?

It's the truth.



Sometimes you have to give up some of you freedoms to secure the others, it’s not a paradox. e.g. I pay $X in taxes to gain the freedom to leave my house and not worry about having it broken into.

How much is X?
How much do you pay for security now?
How do you know that's the proper price when the service is under a monopoly?
How much should be spent on security?

What if I believe that the tax money I'm paying into the system now is not keeping me secure but funding things like the "war on drugs" which fuels gangs and drug cartels?

What if I believe that the tax money I'm paying to keep me secure makes me less secure?

What if I don't like the service and I want to go to someone else?

If I stopped paying taxes I'd be more afraid of the IRS breaking down my door than a local hoodlum.



Well, then I, and the majority of people think you’re wrong. And as long as you continue to be part of society, you have to conform to its will. (it sucks, I know) Of course you can always leave society, but you won’t escape coercion, you’ll just have to deal with a different kind of it.

"Society" exists simply due to the fact that humans interact with each other in a civil manner.

"Society" does not have a will. It is not a sentient being, it's merely a concept in your brain that you're assigning values to. It's the real-world individuals that make up that concept in your head that actually have a "will", and I am one of them.

I never said that all coercion is escapable. I'm not utopian. I understand that there will always be coercion.

The NAP is about minimizing coercion in society by eliminating it's institutional use.



The difference is that you can control how the collective, i.e. the government treats you but you can’t control how a random individual will. That control is what makes a government legitimate in the eyes of most political philosophers.

You're trying to tell me that you seriously believe you can control an institution whose fundamental cornerstone is the initiation of violent force and forces you to fund it? Are you?

I'll tell you what I can control. I can tell anyone to leave my property. I can back that up by force... That is, until they come to me as an agent of the state. Then all my control is gone.

I can control which businesses recieve my money. But I can't control how much I pay in taxes or where it goes.

I don't want to pay for bombs in Libya. What choice do I have?



Nature is cruel and random, society doesn’t have to be. Sometimes people get screwed over through no fault of their own and society exists to even out their pain. To what level that process is justified is ultimately a value judgement.

Nature simply exists. Society is the same way. You're the one assigning values and a purpose to that concept in your head.

And you're right. Nature can be unjust, and society doesn't have to be... that's precisely what the NAP is all about.

Everyone is different physically due to nature and the environment.

Everyone is equal in terms of rights due to the nature of their humanity.



Stepping back to the realm of practicality for a moment, I think your worldview gives courts way too much discretion and would create a very uneven and corrupt society. Let me ask you a question about it though, transactions costs in legal proceedings are presently very high; how could they be lowered to a level which would allow the average person to afford protection comparable to legislation which is present today.

I’ll give a simple example: clean air. If I want emission standards in a statist society I vote for a government which passes certain regulations which are paid for by my tax dollars, let’s say $100 per year. In a stateless world, if some large factory moves in next door and starts polluting my air, how much money and time do you think it would cost me to get them to compensate me for the damage they are inflicting on me through a judicial system? Would it be anywhere close to the $100 in tax contributions?

The scenario you're giving me is completely arbitrary. Where did you even get the $100 from? You're organizing a free society according to your own paradigm to make "low statist taxes" come out on top. It's "outside the realm of practicality" for me to spend a lot of time debating you about whatever random hypotheticals you feel like coming up with, and this is way outside the scope of this thread, anyway.

Do you not think a coercive monopoly attempting to control people's behavior through initiation of force would create an "uneven and corrupt society"?

Do you really think prices for legal services aren't distorted as the result of this monopoly apparatus?

Free-market competition lowers costs. More wealth production increases the standards of living for everyone.

If you really want to get answers to the actual fundamental questions you're asking (where do the "checks and balances" come from in a free society?, what about the poor?, free-market environmentalism, etc) I can point you in a direction to get some answers.

[Teaser Rate]

You're calling nature (the environment) arbitrary. What you're complaining about is the circumstance.

You're starting all of your hypothetical actors off on perfectly equal footing and then saying it's arbitrary that it was "Bob" that found the case.

But the fact that it was Bob who was the one that did manage to find the case, and first, is not arbitrary when it comes to determining who owns it. That was the point.

If I understand correctly, you’re agreeing with my assumption that under your own worldview, Bob has full ownership of the case and other survivors have no right to force him to share it under any circumstances?


This is just getting ridiculous.

Yes, okay now some person commits a crime, the victim doesn't press charges, the mob considers him "a threat" (or perhaps doesn't like his ethnic background?) so they should legitimately be able to remove him from of his own home.

Is that what you're getting at?

Why stop at taking his home? Can't the mob just kill him, since he's obviously a potential "menace to society".

No, what I’m saying is that the "mob" should have explicitly declared and justly enforced laws which protect individuals from acts of aggression. I would certainly believe that the crackhead has a right to a fair trial.


Help do what?

It's the truth.

See, us non-anarcho-capitalists see a big difference between slavery and taxation. One of them involves taking home a bit less money at the end of the month and the other involves being a ****ing slave.


How much is X?
How much do you pay for security now?
How do you know that's the proper price when the service is under a monopoly?
How much should be spent on security?

What if I believe that the tax money I'm paying into the system now is not keeping me secure but funding things like the "war on drugs" which fuels gangs and drug cartels?

What if I believe that the tax money I'm paying to keep me secure makes me less secure?

What if I don't like the service and I want to go to someone else?

If I stopped paying taxes I'd be more afraid of the IRS breaking down my door than a local hoodlum.

Well, if you have a problem with any of those things, you have the option to get the laws changed because you live in a free and democratic society. All you have to do is convince a majority of voters that anarcho-capitalism is the way to go and boom, no more taxes.

Of course, that’s a pain in the ass and it’s easier to justify taking yourself out of the political system, but ultimately, as long as you live within the mob, you are bound to its will.


"Society" exists simply due to the fact that humans interact with each other in a civil manner.

"Society" does not have a will. It is not a sentient being, it's merely a concept in your brain that you're assigning values to. It's the real-world individuals that make up that concept in your head that actually have a "will", and I am one of them.

I never said that all coercion is escapable. I'm not utopian. I understand that there will always be coercion.

The NAP is about minimizing coercion in society by eliminating it's institutional use.

Society might just be a collection of individuals acting in their own interests, but governmental force can be molded for a collection of good and bad purposes. Take the First Amendment for instance, we, as a collective have decided that free-speech is a good thing and have entrusted the full force of government to protect individuals from being aggressed against for using it.


You're trying to tell me that you seriously believe you can control an institution whose fundamental cornerstone is the initiation of violent force and forces you to fund it? Are you?

I'll tell you what I can control. I can tell anyone to leave my property. I can back that up by force... That is, until they come to me as an agent of the state. Then all my control is gone.

I can control which businesses recieve my money. But I can't control how much I pay in taxes or where it goes.

I don't want to pay for bombs in Libya. What choice do I have?

Yes, it’s called a democratic process.


Nature simply exists. Society is the same way. You're the one assigning values and a purpose to that concept in your head.

And you're right. Nature can be unjust, and society doesn't have to be... that's precisely what the NAP is all about.

Everyone is different physically due to nature and the environment.

Everyone is equal in terms of rights due to the nature of their humanity.

What is your definition of rights? Where do they come from? As far as I understand it, rights are a social construct defined by subjective norms. Outside of society, the only rights you have are those you can defend yourself. I agree that certain negative rights are good things, but there is nothing inherent about them. If a powerful alien were to land on the planet and start killing everyone, then he would objectively have the right to conduct his genocide as long as no one were able to stop him.


The scenario you're giving me is completely arbitrary. Where did you even get the $100 from? You're organizing a free society according to your own paradigm to make "low statist taxes" come out on top. It's "outside the realm of practicality" for me to spend a lot of time debating you about whatever random hypotheticals you feel like coming up with, and this is way outside the scope of this thread, anyway.

Do you not think a coercive monopoly attempting to control people's behavior through initiation of force would create an "uneven and corrupt society"?

Do you really think prices for legal services aren't distorted as the result of this monopoly apparatus?

Free-market competition lowers costs. More wealth production increases the standards of living for everyone.

If you really want to get answers to the actual fundamental questions you're asking (where do the "checks and balances" come from in a free society?, what about the poor?, free-market environmentalism, etc) I can point you in a direction to get some answers.

Seems like I asked you a question you weren’t able to respond to. I’ll try asking again in more specific terms. In a town of 1,000 people, citizens decide to create an environmental protection agency to protect the quality of their air. That agency has an annual budget of $100,000, so everyone in the town pays an extra $100 a year in taxes.

If they were to disband that agency and their government, what would they do to prevent a large corporation from coming over and polluting their air quality? A lawsuit would certainly cost a lot more than $100,000 and the big corporation would likely have a much larger defense budget, so trying to use force to kick it out probably won’t work either. Should they all move out of their own town or should they go broke trying to sue a much more powerful outside aggressor?


Btw, I don’t buy the argument that government intervention into law is primarily what makes its practice so expensive. Lawyers are paid very well because their skills need to be very technical due to very nature of written contracts, may they be with the government or between two or more private entities.

If anything, having free competition in law would increase legal costs due to coordination problems between private sets of written law and enforcement agency rules.

[Slutter McGee]

I was being picked on when I was ten. Nothing physical though. My dad told me to punch him as hard as I could in the face, in front of other people. Told me I might get my ass fucking kicked after, but that it would be worth it. He was right. There is you an example.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Vessol]

I was being picked on when I was ten. Nothing physical though. My dad told me to punch him as hard as I could in the face, in front of other people. Told me I might get my ass fucking kicked after, but that it would be worth it. He was right. There is you an example.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Funny, when I tried to fight back, they just grouped on me and gang beat me everyday after that.

[Slutter McGee]

Funny, when I tried to fight back, they just grouped on me and gang beat me everyday after that.

Oh he kicked my ass afterwards. But not until after I gave him a black eye and a bloody lip. A cute little girl named Jenna thought I was awesome for standing up to him. Anyways, I got a reputation for being scrappy, and the bullying stopped not long after.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Echoes]

I was being picked on when I was ten. Nothing physical though. My dad told me to punch him as hard as I could in the face, in front of other people. Told me I might get my ass fucking kicked after, but that it would be worth it. He was right. There is you an example.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Haha,
Good ole' skewl advice from pops :)

[Carson]

When someone is breaking the law and violating you, you have a right to defend yourself with what ever means you have. You are no longer restrained by the old laws since your violator has put new rules into play.


When your Constitution is being abused and violated not only do you have a right to respond but also a duty.

[Deborah K]

Funny, when I tried to fight back, they just grouped on me and gang beat me everyday after that.

That's when you take self defense courses and pick those creeps off one by one. Street justice.

I got my fighting spirit from my Father. When I was 5 years old, I used to go outside our apartment and the sidwalks were surrounded by sharp-edged little rocks instead of grass. This little creep a couple years older than I would pick up a handful and throw them at me when he saw me. I became afraid to go outside, and so one day, my Mom told my Dad this when he got home from work. My Dad sat me down on his knee, looked me straight in the eye and firmly told me, "The next time that kid throws rocks at you, I want you to bust him in the chops!" I was jolted with courage. If my Daddy thought I could do it, then I knew I could. The next time that kid saw me, he threw rocks at me again. I charged him like a bull, knocked him to the ground and started wailing on him. He ran off crying and never came around me again.

That experience imprinted on me. Throughout my life I have drawn courage from it and it has served me well.

[pcosmar]

That experience imprinted on me. Throughout my life I have drawn courage from it and it has served me well.
Got a picture of that in my mind.
:D
:cool:

[Deborah K]

Got a picture of that in my mind.
:D
:cool:

:o