Possible flaw in the NAP?

[osan]

I, as with many of you, am a strong proponent of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). I cannot recall what thread it was, but something someone wrote caused a question to arise. The NAP admonishes against the initiation of force, but not all aggression is force in the way I normally take its meaning in the context of NAP.

What I mean is this: if someone comes to me and threatens to punch me in the teeth or shoot me, that constitutes assault, provided the threat may be taken as credible. That is not force, per sé, but it is aggression. If someone threatens to harm or kill me, I am well within my right to defend against the assault by initiating physical force against them. Therefore, initiation of force is not always wrong and the precise formulation of the NAP appears to me to be imperfect.

Likewise, not all aggression can be judged as threatening. If a man is aggressively attempting to sell me an automobile that I do not want or is trying to get by me in traffic, that really does not qualify as force in the NAP sense of the term. Therefore, meeting any such aggression with physical force may not be justifiable.

All this appears to point to a need for a rigorous definition of the NAP. Perhaps one exists already, but I do not recall having seen it. My reading on these topics is pretty broad but by no means complete.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[brandon]

There was a thread on this just the other week. I like this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4353330


The rigorous definition you're looking for is the body of rules and laws that govern a society.

[mport1]

What I mean is this: if someone comes to me and threatens to punch me in the teeth or shoot me, that constitutes assault, provided the threat may be taken as credible. That is not force, per sé, but it is aggression. If someone threatens to harm or kill me, I am well within my right to defend against the assault by initiating physical force against them. Therefore, initiation of force is not always wrong and the precise formulation of the NAP appears to me to be imperfect.

In your example you are not the one initiating force. Your use of force is retaliation since his threat of violence against you constitutes and initiation of force.

[mczerone]

The NAP is rigid, but the definitions of "aggressive force" and "justifiable reaction" are up to subjective determination. That's why courts have a role, and why they need to be subject to market pressure. In a market for courts, we'd always be finding more efficient (more harmonious) solutions to what is "aggression" and what reactions are just.

And if the sensibilities of the people in the market change, the definitions can change. 110 years ago, no one would have cared if you had a huge Tesla coil running in your house. Today it could interfere with radio, wifi, and electronic circuits in neighboring homes, so now it may be an aggression when it wasn't before.

[newbitech]

Force has so many definitions. Force doesn't have to be "physical". One example is that force is persuasive power; power to convince.

A threat is this type of force.

So is a moving argument or a heart felt plea.

The problem as I see it is once again conflation of terms.

"Force" and "Aggression"
"Aggression" and "Violence"
"Force" and "Violence"

Here, we really need to separate the "physical" from the "non-physical".

The are profoundly deep unanswered questions that need to be resolved before I can take this "principle" seriously. I can conceptualize it, I can live it out to a certain extent. Sadly though, I believe I live in a world where initiation of force is unavoidable if I am to preserve my own self interest.

Meaning, I cannot see an equitable way to resolve particular types of issues that come up in my life everyday without initiating the aggression, leaving the "threat" on the table so to speak.

Yes, I may use that to my advantage in certain situations where I know an individual I am dealing with is physically weaker and if I can put off a challenge or put my self in a situation where I don't have to actually follow through with a threat, by initiating that force early on, rather than waiting until I feel like I am the one being pushed around, then that's what I'll do.

I think it's much easier to stick with the principles that we know and understand.

Don't steal. Don't intentionally harm others. Don't get in someones face and violate their personal space. Treat others how you'd want to be treated. etc..

There is no need in my mind to try and put all these principles into a box, slap a cozy acronym on it, and call it a day.

There are so many unique situations that happen in my life every day where I can easily justify my words and actions, and by talking things out in my relationships can work equitable solutions to problems. I don't need NAP. No one does really. To me, it is esoteric terminology that simply confuses people.

The concept is really easy to understand in practice. Basically, violence as a last resort in my mind.

I am a peaceful person, but I know that the world is not a peaceful place. Sometimes, being aggressive and initiating force is the only equitable solution when confronted with parties who simply cannot agree on how to resolve a conflict.

This isn't human nature. This is animal nature. We won't remove THAT principle until we can live without the fight or flight reflex and still breath unconsciously.

FEAR is a more powerful natural response than whatever NAP is IMO.

[ProIndividual]

The flaw in the NAP is when it coerces you. If you are starving to death, the NAP makes stealing food impossible. No one will follow it at this point, as it coerces them. If they do follow it, they will starve to death. Predictably it will be abandoned. To predict human behavior reliably and have a coherent moral theory we need more than just the NAP. I wrote about it here.

[osan]

In your example you are not the one initiating force. Your use of force is retaliation since his threat of violence against you constitutes and initiation of force.

And so we see the root of the problem - apparent lack of precise definitions... at least of which I am aware. Aggression, force, initiation conditions... all need to be clear.

Are they?

[osan]

The flaw in the NAP is when it coerces you. If you are starving to death, the NAP makes stealing food impossible. No one will follow it at this point, as it coerces them. If they do follow it, they will starve to death. Predictably it will be abandoned. To predict human behavior reliably and have a coherent moral theory we need more than just the NAP. I wrote about it here.

This is a valid point, but the boundary conditions must be recognized as dicey at best. I would also offer the notion that these ideas of proper behavior, proper social behavior, apply to groups living under "normal" conditions. Where circumstances have devolved to the point that personal survival is hanging by a bare thread, all bets are off. It seems to me there is relative clarity in the extremes, times of peace and plenty, times of war, of widespread famine, of catastrophe. But what about times of peace and plenty where circumstance finds a man starving in the street with nobody to help him? An extreme case in its unlikelihood, I agree - but useful to consider for the purposes of better understanding where principle ends and pure pragmatism takes over by necessity. Here we find a theoretical problem with full privatization. If we assume this man starves through no fault of his own, we are forced to face the question of whether he is OBLIGED to die in the case where everything is private property and none will render him aid. In other words, a conflict has arisen between normative principle and positive reality. In a world where everything is owned, the starving man is forced to choose either to steal or lay down and die. The rest of us are forced to regard his position one way or another - as a punishable act of theft or as justifiable based on his immediate right to exercise his means to survive. That last bit then opens doors to a couple more thorny questions. If he is allowed to steal to live, what about murder?

It is here that I see the virtue in the commons, which I define as those areas, real estate and the associated resources, owned not by the public, but by nobody. Being unowned, all are free to use them with some guidelines such as not digging an open pit mine in the middle of town and so forth. In the case of the starving man, the commons may provide him the means of survival. Perhaps there is a berry patch from which he may eat. And what of a place to stay? If he is starving, we may also suppose that he is homeless as well. In a fully privatized world where nobody is willing to render aid, where would such a man lay his body to rest for a spell?

Once again, I recognize the extremely unlikely nature of this example, but if we are to claim to base our living philosophies upon principles, it hardly does not to hold the fullest possible grasp of them. Just because a circumstance is unlikely, it is not sound to assume it will never arise. The Titanic is a pretty good case in point, as is the disaster at Fukushima. Who would ever have thought a tsunami would do what it did? Apparently not enough people. The craziest things happen - things people regard as effectively impossible, until it happens. To them.

Where, then, does this poor, skinny, and very hungry fellow stand with respect to the NAP? Is his theft of grandma's pie cooling on the window sill punishable as a crime? If yes, is punishment really called for? If no, where does that leave our principles, the NAP included? Are we rigid? Fluid? How fluid? Where are the boundaries? Even freedom has its challenges.

[Lothario]

the problem is, you are still operating under the brainwashing of some type of central social engineering...the law would be enforced via the values collectively held by a society. any law would only be as pure and precise as the values of a society. think back to when Ron Paul was talking about abortion laws...as he said then, it's not like the issue can really ever be solved by laws, rather, it's the morality of society that must change. same goes for this. the society will collectively define what forms of interaction are acceptable, and which are not. there is no precision. there never will be, because there will be no centrally planned social engineering.

[Yieu]

It appears you may be using the word "force" as "physical force", but force can be non-physical.

The non-aggression principle is not quite so much about "being aggressive" as it is about causing harm to others.

The rigorous definition you're looking for is the body of rules and laws that govern a society.

Not exactly -- that would only apply if the society was based on the non-aggression principle. There are plenty of laws not based on the NAP.

As for the quote in the linked post:

NAP is a very incomplete philosophy, and it is in no way a substitute for a system of laws.

In order for some people to make it work, they describe non-violent acts, such as theft as "aggression".

I disagree on all points. NAP is extremely complete, with a complete understanding of it.

If you trace the origin of the NAP back to the Hindu concept of ahimsa, also translated as non-violence, then you can begin to see how full a philosophy it is.

It means to not cause harm to others, and it extends beyond humans in its original concept.

It is one of the core teachings of religion, and it encompasses all aspects of life.

An understanding of the depth of the NAP and how it applies to all interactions in life can be gained by more fully understanding the root concept -- ahimsa. In order to understand ahimsa, you must also understand karma. Not the Western misunderstanding of it, but the system of reward and punishment for good or bad deeds. And to understand karma, you must also understand reincarnation. On the realization that karma effects one before and after this life as well as those you act upon, and upon reflecting on how the Lord might view our actions, being non-violent begins to appear to be a good idea.

It is a complex issue, but it is one worth study, in my opinion. Of course, everyone has different preferences, and it may not be for everyone.

The flaw in the NAP is when it coerces you. If you are starving to death, the NAP makes stealing food impossible. No one will follow it at this point, as it coerces them. If they do follow it, they will starve to death. Predictably it will be abandoned.

This is solved by begging, so it is not a flaw. This is why Hindu saints beg, and that is not seen as a lower position, because it is better than aggressing.

This works more in the context of a society that understands this, of course, but it can still be applied. There is religious charity, for example. Part of its purpose is to enable others to follow the non-aggression principle more in their own lives, if they so chose.

To predict human behavior reliably and have a coherent moral theory we need more than just the NAP.

This is true, it is called religion. As I mentioned above, while the NAP comes from religion, there is more to religion than the NAP.

[Occam's Banana]

And so we see the root of the problem - apparent lack of precise definitions... at least of which I am aware. Aggression, force, initiation conditions... all need to be clear.

Are they?

The problem isn't just one of lacking sufficiently precise definitions. There is also the insescapable fact that reality is "sloppy" & doesn't fit neatly into the pigeonholes we prepare for it.

We may equip ourselves with as many arbitrarily precise definitions as we please, but we will still have to deal with the imperfect "sloppiness" that will invevitably arise when we apply those definitions in the real world.

There will always be edge cases & "spill-over" in the application of the NAP (or any other principle of justice), no matter how precise our definitions.

This doesn't mean that the NAP is flawed or insufficiently precise. It just means that reality is not as neat & tidy as would be convenient.

[Occam's Banana]

The NAP is rigid, but the definitions of "aggressive force" and "justifiable reaction" are up to subjective determination. That's why courts have a role, and why they need to be subject to market pressure. In a market for courts, we'd always be finding more efficient (more harmonious) solutions to what is "aggression" and what reactions are just.

And if the sensibilities of the people in the market change, the definitions can change. 110 years ago, no one would have cared if you had a huge Tesla coil running in your house. Today it could interfere with radio, wifi, and electronic circuits in neighboring homes, so now it may be an aggression when it wasn't before.

Exactly this^^. The problem isn't with NAP; it's with the expectation that we hit the nail squarely on the head each and every time. Due to the "sloppiness" of reality, limited & imperfect knowledge, etc., NO principle(s) of justice can achieve that degree of perfection. To inisist that they do is misguided exercise that is doomed to disappoint.

Instead, we must seek always to ensure that the real-world application of NAP results in a series of successively (or at least sufficiently) close approximations to justice.

[osan]

The problem isn't just one of lacking sufficiently precise definitions. There is also the insescapable fact that reality is "sloppy" & doesn't fit neatly into the pigeonholes we prepare for it.

We may equip ourselves with as many arbitrarily precise definitions as we please, but we will still have to deal with the imperfect "sloppiness" that will invevitably arise when we apply those definitions in the real world.

There will always be edge cases & "spill-over" in the application of the NAP (or any other principle of justice), no matter how precise our definitions.

Very well stated. Our mental constructs are able to simulate and track with "reality" only to a tolerance. However tightly those tolerances may map, they are still only approximations.

This doesn't mean that the NAP is flawed or insufficiently precise. It just means that reality is not as neat & tidy as would be convenient.

Here I must depart with you. It seems you have this part precisely reversed. It is exactly that the NAP, a human mental artifact, is imprecise. Reality is the invariant in this discussion.

Formulation of such a concept is in this sense much like calculating PI to an arbitrary number of decimal places - the more places, the greater the precision, but no matter how far you go you will always obtain only an irrational approximation of the actual value. You never arrive at the end, so to speak, but at some point you are close enough to call it good. The NAP as I have seen it expressed is good so far as it goes, but it fails to go far enough... in my experience. It may be a simple matter of my not having read the right treatise on it, for all I know.

The real world does not comport itself quite perfectly with our idealized notions of how things ought to work, but if we can tighten up the slack enough the practical matters should be well covered.

[osan]

The NAP is rigid, but the definitions of "aggressive force" and "justifiable reaction" are up to subjective determination. That's why courts have a role, and why they need to be subject to market pressure. In a market for courts, we'd always be finding more efficient (more harmonious) solutions to what is "aggression" and what reactions are just.

Rigidity at some level must be maintained or our concepts mean nothing. "Market pressure" appears to me to become capricious a bit too easily to allow it to act as arbitrator of certain considerations. If market pressures eventually made it OK for the boys of NAMBLA to have their dreams realized, would you as a parent give your little boy up to them because they demanded it and the courts agreed? I sure as hell would not. I'd give them bullets instead - call me crazy.

And if the sensibilities of the people in the market change, the definitions can change.

At a certain level of operation, I completely agree. But there is a lower level where operational principles must remain undisturbed. Without this we are fooling ourselves if we choose to believe that the world is anything other than a free-for-all. This idea is perhaps well enough embodied in the concept of the "sacred" - that which is sacrosanct - not to be trespassed upon by anyone.

110 years ago, no one would have cared if you had a huge Tesla coil running in your house. Today it could interfere with radio, wifi, and electronic circuits in neighboring homes, so now it may be an aggression when it wasn't before.

This may be a good example... I'd have to think about it awhile, though. But I agree with you in principle here so long as the concept of "level" (for lack of a better word at the moment) is present and it is recognized that the fundamental principles are treated as effectively immutable.

[osan]

Force has so many definitions. Force doesn't have to be "physical". One example is that force is persuasive power; power to convince.

A threat is this type of force.

So is a moving argument or a heart felt plea.

The problem as I see it is once again conflation of terms.

This simple statement nutshells one of humanities greatest failings. Well done.

"Force" and "Aggression"
"Aggression" and "Violence"
"Force" and "Violence"

Here, we really need to separate the "physical" from the "non-physical".

Precisely on point. The problems all ultimately boil down to the physical.

The are profoundly deep unanswered questions that need to be resolved before I can take this "principle" seriously. I can conceptualize it, I can live it out to a certain extent. Sadly though, I believe I live in a world where initiation of force is unavoidable if I am to preserve my own self interest.

Depends on the definition of "initiation" or what, exactly, is being initiated. For example, if someone assaults me by saying, "I'm going to beat your ass." or "I'm going to kill you," I am well within my rights to respond with physical force to preempt the pending physical attack. Would such a response qualify as initiation? Perhaps, if we consider the situation narrowly in that I initiate PHYSICAL force. But the aggressor initiated with verbal force when he issued the threat to beat or kill me. I would therefore be more inclined to view the situation as having been initiated by the one issuing the verbal threat. So now we have two considerations at hand - the situation itself and the physical force. The situation is the broader element and in a sense subsumes the force in that had the situation not been initiated with the verbal promise of physical force, the preemptive physical response would not have been necessary.

Meaning, I cannot see an equitable way to resolve particular types of issues that come up in my life everyday without initiating the aggression, leaving the "threat" on the table so to speak.

Can you give an example that does not fit with what I wrote immediately above? I would be very interested in seeing whether such a circumstance may actually arise even in theory.

Yes, I may use that to my advantage in certain situations where I know an individual I am dealing with is physically weaker and if I can put off a challenge or put my self in a situation where I don't have to actually follow through with a threat, by initiating that force early on, rather than waiting until I feel like I am the one being pushed around, then that's what I'll do.

I think I understand what you are saying here and would generally agree where to do nothing is likely to result in trespass upon your person by others.

I think it's much easier to stick with the principles that we know and understand.

Don't steal. Don't intentionally harm others. Don't get in someones face and violate their personal space. Treat others how you'd want to be treated. etc..

There is no need in my mind to try and put all these principles into a box, slap a cozy acronym on it, and call it a day.

Again we agree in the main, but I would point out that at some level one must hit bedrock upon which the foundation of one's ethical basis is to be built.

I don't need NAP. No one does really. To me, it is esoteric terminology that simply confuses people.

Yet, your short litany of ethical standards, above, must be based on something that does not change with the winds of fashion. I think that is what the NAP is attempting to render conceptually substantial. My problem with it is that the expression appears simplistic and therefore incomplete. I agree with it as far as it goes, but it appears not to go far enough for my comfort.

The concept is really easy to understand in practice. Basically, violence as a last resort in my mind.

Yet again we agree, but if we are going to formulate a philosophical basis for living to which we expect all to adhere, it had best be right, sufficiently complete, and VERY well understood.

I am a peaceful person, but I know that the world is not a peaceful place. Sometimes, being aggressive and initiating force is the only equitable solution when confronted with parties who simply cannot agree on how to resolve a conflict.

This is true for a given perspective on "initiation". I would submit that predominant operational concept of the term is perhaps lacking in sufficient precision that it leads us at times down garden paths, and THAT was my motivation for starting this thread - to better clarify what the NAP is and as importantly, what it is NOT.

FEAR is a more powerful natural response than whatever NAP is IMO.

Practically speaking, yes. But fear can be overcome. Pressing on in the face of one's terror is what we call "courage". It may not always be smart, but I believe it always deserves our respect.

[osan]

the problem is, you are still operating under the brainwashing of some type of central social engineering...the law would be enforced via the values collectively held by a society. any law would only be as pure and precise as the values of a society. think back to when Ron Paul was talking about abortion laws...as he said then, it's not like the issue can really ever be solved by laws, rather, it's the morality of society that must change. same goes for this. the society will collectively define what forms of interaction are acceptable, and which are not. there is no precision. there never will be, because there will be no centrally planned social engineering.

You will forgive me if I point out that you are here treating the concept of "society" as a bloc - as a thing in and of itself - a unit, and thereby implying characteristics and features that it simply does not possess.

[Occam's Banana]

Rigidity at some level must be maintained or our concepts mean nothing. "Market pressure" appears to me to become capricious a bit too easily to allow it to act as arbitrator of certain considerations. If market pressures eventually made it OK for the boys of NAMBLA to have their dreams realized, would you as a parent give your little boy up to them because they demanded it and the courts agreed? I sure as hell would not. I'd give them bullets instead - call me crazy.

At a certain level of operation, I completely agree. But there is a lower level where operational principles must remain undisturbed. Without this we are fooling ourselves if we choose to believe that the world is anything other than a free-for-all. This idea is perhaps well enough embodied in the concept of the "sacred" - that which is sacrosanct - not to be trespassed upon by anyone.

I agree. At the "lower level", as you say, the foundation of justice (one "stone" of which is NAP) must be secure, stable & uncompromised.

The "higher level" (where the "rubber meets the road", if you'll allow me to mix cliched metaphors) is where some degreee of "sloppiness" inevitably begins to manifest.

NAP is a principle of justice from which (in conjunction with other valid principles of justice) myriad systems of law may be derived. The particulars of any given system of law may vary over time, but so long as NAP (and other valid principles of justice) remains unabrogated, you will still have a "just" society.

[newbitech]

This simple statement nutshells one of humanities greatest failings. Well done.

We learn as humans very early on that much of what we call communication is left to the imagination of the recipient. We learn to trust each other in this regard and as such we are all easily fooled, IMO. We must guard our minds against corrupted influence and develop discernment and good judgement. We can reach consensus by understanding that if you and I both look at our feet, our vision will intersect at the core.

Precisely on point. The problems all ultimately boil down to the physical.

Yes, they do. Ultimately, it is the physical that give sanctuary to the intellect. It is up to the intellect to find existence outside of the physical, and nothing short of redefining matter AND 100% transfer from the old definition to the new definition will suffice. We learn to view the world from the outside in. The challenge of life IMO, is the view the world from the inside out.

Depends on the definition of "initiation" or what, exactly, is being initiated. For example, if someone assaults me by saying, "I'm going to beat your ass." or "I'm going to kill you," I am well within my rights to respond with physical force to preempt the pending physical attack. Would such a response qualify as initiation? Perhaps, if we consider the situation narrowly in that I initiate PHYSICAL force. But the aggressor initiated with verbal force when he issued the threat to beat or kill me. I would therefore be more inclined to view the situation as having been initiated by the one issuing the verbal threat. So now we have two considerations at hand - the situation itself and the physical force. The situation is the broader element and in a sense subsumes the force in that had the situation not been initiated with the verbal promise of physical force, the preemptive physical response would not have been necessary.

Yes, initiation is not a bad word unless it precedes things one or more parties in a relationship do not like. To me this is the classic house of cards, or shifting sands. Initiation to me simply means to be first. Initial. Or just plain, "I". The verbal assault to me is initiation of aggression. Different than initiation of force or violence. However, certain types of verbal aggression does have violent consequences. For instance, if I go before the public and accuse you of a crime, regardless if you are guilty, the verbal aggression on my part will more than likely spur physical consequences. Someone may decide not to visit your shop, causing you a loss of income. Small example, and to really think about, the verbal expression is really a physical act. It is not the ideas that are to be condemned, but the decision to vibrate the air with my vocal cords in the precise manner, in public, which caused you harm.

In my mind, I have to judge the source of the threat to deem its credibility. Is this person a stranger that has a distinct physical advantage? Do I have proper recourse should the situation turn violent despite my desire to avoid escalating the conflict? Many more question like this occur in a split second decision. So I train myself to avoid those types of situations. Stay out of dark alleys, don't wear opposing team colors to an away game. Etc. Etc. In the ugly event where I am physically assaulted with threatening words, words meant to cause a change in my emotional state IS A PHYSICAL assault, then I respond in self defense. It becomes obvious the circumstance where the person initiating the violence with words is violating my right, and my response is justified.

Can you give an example that does not fit with what I wrote immediately above? I would be very interested in seeing whether such a circumstance may actually arise even in theory.

Well yes, the obvious example is in dealing with subordinates. Just about every relationship that is meaningful to me above general human interaction has obvious physical consequences if the relationship should be severed. For instance, a business partner. Here is a perfect example of a relationship that is codified on paper to etch out every single possible detail of what may or may not occur in the relationship. Invariably, there are certain cards that each party holds on to and does not codify. These cards are initiate cards, so to speak. For instance, I hold a particular card in a business venture that my partner vaguely knows about. Vaguely because I only show him pieces of that card when it benefits me. This card allows me to sever the relationship on my terms regardless of what I am contractually obliged to. The card puts my partner at a distinct disadvantage should the business fail. It works both ways though. He has his own "initiate" cards. He routinely talks about forcing others in the business relations to actually and physically "eat" the loss should those others make choices that have negative impacts on the business finances. This is an overt threat of physical force. This threat is checked by my own initiate cards at times, and at other times, I allow the threat to stand, or I even back the threat.

An exact example. We were given a verbal cue to make a purchase of a certain amount of a product of certain types with a cost of well over 500 dollars. We were told that we would get more and variable types of work from this person if we made this purchase. We made the purchase in good faith and took the person at their word. We saw no change at the halfway point of the timeline we were given. This was a concern because the loss was becoming palatable. The threat was initiated. "If we don't see more work as a result of purchasing this product, you will be eating the product for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the rest of the term." I stood by the threat, but in a more delicate way. "Look, if we cannot act in good faith with you, we will have to consider your word to be worthless and will treat what you say to us with contempt and seek remedy through whatever means possible."

We got more work, had we sat back, mum on the issue, tell me, what do you think would have happened? I am sure all kinds of gymnastics can be performed to say that I did not initiate aggression. I did. Could I have found a way to do it that would not be threatening? Sure. Would it have been effective and more importantly, equitable? NO. Why? Because the time factor. There was no time to negotiate. I took the man at his word. He didn't perform, I laid out threat, he performed. The relationship is fine. We are happy to get the work, he is happy to make his money off of us without lifting a finger. We are shaping the relationship with this "middle man" and providing a counter balance to his control structures.

I think I understand what you are saying here and would generally agree where to do nothing is likely to result in trespass upon your person by others.

Yes, people are going to push limits and boundaries. That is what we do. Ultimately, you rub up against someone and they push back. I think more important than defining Non-Aggression is teaching deescalation. The problem we have with authority IMO is the tendency for that authority to ESCALATE. In fact it's almost more than a tendency. It's like policy. Look at the guy who drives his car through taco bell over a missing taco. He escalated. If you are taco bell, how do you defend yourself against THAT? Or better yet, if you are a nation like for instance, IRAN with no nuclear arsenal, how do you defend yourself against the nation of America? You have to display some kind of force. You have to show your teeth so to speak. However, knowing when and how to deescalate is more of a skill than any of us are willing to accept. Because to deescalate, you have to stop caring about WHO STARTED IT.

Again we agree in the main, but I would point out that at some level one must hit bedrock upon which the foundation of one's ethical basis is to be built.

I know what you are saying. I think the importance here is relationships. I have no ethical basis without acknowledging my place in the world. I do not stand alone. I say again, look down at your feet and my vision and your vision will cross paths. This is my ethical basis. We look to the core. Seeing life from the inside out is the key I believe to establishing a foundation that cannot be under mined. In relationship creating and building, look to the core of that person. Even in a stranger that passes in the street. Always seek the core of every individual you come across. Eye contact is where it starts. You learn right away if that person is attempting to see life from the inside out. I believe there are a completely separate set of rules for those who do not function this way. A person who wants to confront me will know well in advance that I have already justified my response to them based on our mutual core beliefs. Whether that be a mugger in a blind alley, or the car sales man trying to spin an extra couple hundred off me, to my closest friends and family that have learned with me how to approach conflict in the relationships.

Yet, your short litany of ethical standards, above, must be based on something that does not change with the winds of fashion. I think that is what the NAP is attempting to render conceptually substantial. My problem with it is that the expression appears simplistic and therefore incomplete. I agree with it as far as it goes, but it appears not to go far enough for my comfort.

Well, I say it's two things that work together. Relationships and experience. Basically, time in the world inhabited by others. Look to your feet. I will expand on this simply. If everyone in the world all looked to their feet at the same time, and followed that line in to eternity, there would be a tight cluster around the core of the earth where all views crossed. It is an allegory, yes. Your feet are your foundation on which the rest of your body is supported, including your head. Your feet are also the lowest part of your body, the furthest away from the blood and oxygen pump. In order to achieve harmony in thought we must share a similar vision. Our sites must be focused on the same object. I look for this object. I actively seek in every situation what object that everyone of my relationships focus on. As an aside, no business is not focused on money as much as people may think. Money is simply a conduit for other ideas to travel. The tunnel in the vision.

Yet again we agree, but if we are going to formulate a philosophical basis for living to which we expect all to adhere, it had best be right, sufficiently complete, and VERY well understood.

I don't think it's possible. I think the best we can do is find the common denominator, and trust that each of our fellow humans will have found the same. Treat others as you want to be treated. That is really the golden rule. That is NAP IMO. The flaw comes with trying to expand it in to something it is not and can never be, something expect all to adhere to. This is why I believe trying to roll NAP in to a core principle is misguided. I almost feel like someone is coming up to me with an eating utensil that looks like a fork, and tells me, here, you need this to survive, it's the only way to eat. I say to them, no thanks I already have a fork, and they say well yeah, but you don't have THIS. I bite and say, OK what is it? They say, well let me tell you how it was made. OK..... Why is it any different than a fork, I ask? This is so amazing because of all the people who have ever used it! They say. Well, I say, it is still a fork, I already have one, and I don't see what is so amazing about it. They say, Ahhh that is because you haven't used it yet! Here, try it, it's not a fork, it is something way better than a fork! Right, I say, have nice day.

This is true for a given perspective on "initiation". I would submit that predominant operational concept of the term is perhaps lacking in sufficient precision that it leads us at times down garden paths, and THAT was my motivation for starting this thread - to better clarify what the NAP is and as importantly, what it is NOT.

Put in my best terms, I think it is an esoteric argument. It is a weak link in a philosophy that attempts to take the moral high ground. Rather than accepting that force, aggression, initiated violence, and all sorts of bad things are going to happen, the NAP tries to rake all these things up in to one big pile and burn it in an attempt to move on to the more urgent issues of the day. Of course, NAP ties in neatly with ANY anti-authoritarian stance, but we get the NAP as part of a specific philosophy for the need of that philosophy to define itself in it's own terms. I cannot understand why basically the golden rule needs to redefined in such a way, but I really do appreciate a philosophy that puts that as front and center as a core pillar. What I don't appreciate is the attempt to try and covet this idea away from others who may not agree with some of the other esoteric notions that are equally respectable, but also equally ambiguous.

Practically speaking, yes. But fear can be overcome. Pressing on in the face of one's terror is what we call "courage". It may not always be smart, but I believe it always deserves our respect.

I think courage is a virtue not widely taught or understood. The NAP or golden rule certainly does not teach courage. Courage I believe comes in the face of trial by fear. Eventually, someone put in enough fearful situations will learn to adapt and overcome. We can pass courage on to our children by allowing them to make mistakes early in life and give them room to make their own decisions. At the same time, the golden rule or NAP can be expressed in learning to NOT put others in fearful situations. It all ties together and is part of the same wider lesson, IMO. We share common goals. Find those goals, and build relationships based on achieving those goals.

[osan]

We learn as humans very early on that much of what we call communication is left to the imagination of the recipient. We learn to trust each other in this regard and as such we are all easily fooled, IMO. We must guard our minds against corrupted influence and develop discernment and good judgement. We can reach consensus by understanding that if you and I both look at our feet, our vision will intersect at the core.

Bringing us back to the crucial role that education plays. Given this, the character of public schooling becomes ever the more unbearable in its hideous nature. It is a criminal enterprise that destroys children.

The verbal assault to me is initiation of aggression.

That is how I see it. Words are important in that they are a form of communication, which is penultimately important to living beings. One is responsible for his utterances and other forms of communication - within reason of course. The recipient also bear responsibility to an extent, but where a message may be taken clearly as a threat the recipient is under no obligation whatsoever to to try do decide whether it is credible. The assumption is warranted, IMO. People, therefore, need to be VERY careful with their words and other gestures because in a reasonable world the wrong communication could get one hurt or dead.

It is a favorite device of mine to hearken back to feudal Japan. The Japanese in those days were acutely aware of the nature of communications and that was one reason they were so infallibly polite, for offering communications that could possibly be misinterpreted as either a threat or a show of disrespect to another INDIVIDUAL or group or what have you would be grounds for a duel. I agree with this outlook strongly.

Different than initiation of force or violence.

Practically speaking, it is no different. If a man pulls out a knife and begins waving it at me in a menacing fashion, I have no way of knowing whether he "means it". The same may said about other instruments of communication. That Japanese kid who trespassed on that old guy's property some 20 years ago and acting like an idiot got him shot dead. The old man was well within his rights to respond in that manner, tragic as the outcome was. People have become far and away too casual in how the treat each other. The typical teen, were he to be teleported to the 18th century would not likely last a day before being shot, beaten severely, or run through due to the familiar ways in which he would certainly approach others, all of whom would take strong exception. The deeper meaning of "respect" has been largely lost in the modern world. For all our technological sophistication, we are simplistic, ignorant brutes in terms of our social graces. I find it dangerously appalling fro everyone. Dangerous to those who behave in such stupidly casual ways and to those who may respond with force to such poorly considered ways, for the law is clearly on the side of the idiot whose own ass now adorn his head as a hat. Our courts are, by and large, wholesale, barking, weed-wackingly insane. Welcome to the funny farm.

However, certain types of verbal aggression does have violent consequences. For instance, if I go before the public and accuse you of a crime, regardless if you are guilty, the verbal aggression on my part will more than likely spur physical consequences.

Perhaps, but if you dispatch the varlet in the manner of a 19th century duel to restore your honor, you'd better have a very good lawyer on tap and even that may not help you. Our governmental offices have become ever more strongly oriented to the benefit of the imbecile and to the detriment of the rational and decent man who dares act pursuant to his legitimate better interests.

the verbal expression is really a physical act.

Precisely so, yet due to its specific nature its significance and value are grossly discounted.

It is not the ideas that are to be condemned, but the decision to vibrate the air with my vocal cords in the precise manner, in public, which caused you harm.

Or threatened harm. The example you cited is interesting in that according to law you are obliged to wait until the harm is affected and then you "take him to court". At that point the damage is done and now you have to endure further insult to your finances and stomach lining by dragging some scumbag into the courts of equity to demonstrate your losses, which often cannot be clearly substantiated to a preponderance of evidence. Once again, the system appears to protect the scoundrel more than the decent man in many cases and the latter has no legal recourse. I am a fan of the duel. Issue utterances, e.g. "your sister is a tramp and a slut," and you should face at least the possibility of pistols at 20 paces at dawn. THAT would close many a mouth.

In my mind, I have to judge the source of the threat to deem its credibility.

And, sadly, you have to do so to a legal standard that remains elusively defined, if defined even that much.

Is this person a stranger that has a distinct physical advantage? Do I have proper recourse should the situation turn violent despite my desire to avoid escalating the conflict? Many more question like this occur in a split second decision. So I train myself to avoid those types of situations. Stay out of dark alleys, don't wear opposing team colors to an away game. Etc. Etc. In the ugly event where I am physically assaulted with threatening words, words meant to cause a change in my emotional state IS A PHYSICAL assault, then I respond in self defense. It becomes obvious the circumstance where the person initiating the violence with words is violating my right, and my response is justified.

Well put.

An exact example. We were given a verbal cue to make a purchase of a certain amount of a product of certain types with a cost of well over 500 dollars. We were told that we would get more and variable types of work from this person if we made this purchase. We made the purchase in good faith and took the person at their word. We saw no change at the halfway point of the timeline we were given. This was a concern because the loss was becoming palatable. The threat was initiated. "If we don't see more work as a result of purchasing this product, you will be eating the product for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the rest of the term." I stood by the threat, but in a more delicate way. "Look, if we cannot act in good faith with you, we will have to consider your word to be worthless and will treat what you say to us with contempt and seek remedy through whatever means possible."

Ah... I was thinking in slightly different terms, but I understand your meaning and agree completely. This example exposes a glaring flaw in the NAP as commonly expressed and supports my assertion that its formulation needs significant tuning in order to have a meaning that, were it codified into law, would not precipitate grand chaos upon us. Your example could possibly land you in serious trouble - jail trouble - were the NAP as it is currently specified, made law.

I am sure all kinds of gymnastics can be performed to say that I did not initiate aggression. I did.

So what we have uncovered, then, is that initiation of aggression can not only be acceptable, but laudable. There are, therefore, two broad categories of initiated aggression - that which is justifiable and that which is not. Of course, the pedant might get all silly on us and claim this is not so, that your aggression was actually a response to their aggression which took the form of heading toward breaking their word to you. While it might be so in the most sternly absurd technical sense, I think it is a very practical thing to draw a line somewhere, though I am not sure how to locate its position with any precision.

Could I have found a way to do it that would not be threatening? Sure. Would it have been effective and more importantly, equitable? NO. Why? Because the time factor. There was no time to negotiate. I took the man at his word. He didn't perform, I laid out threat, he performed. The relationship is fine. We are happy to get the work, he is happy to make his money off of us without lifting a finger. We are shaping the relationship with this "middle man" and providing a counter balance to his control structures.

This, of course, is a matter of experience and judgment, but it is also a matter of prerogative and IMO in such matters the prerogative is yours because you were trespassed upon, "trespass" being the key term in this entire discussion. It just occurred to me that the NAP should actually be the NTP - Non-Trespass Principle because trespass may be argued as ALWAYS wrong, whereas initiated aggression is clearly not.

This I feel is actually significant and would very much like to see some discussion.

I know what you are saying. I think the importance here is relationships. I have no ethical basis without acknowledging my place in the world. I do not stand alone. I say again, look down at your feet and my vision and your vision will cross paths.

I believe that your metaphorical image tracks closely with what I have written.

I don't think it's possible.

Look to your feet.

I think the best we can do is find the common denominator

That is precisely what we are both saying, unless I am grossly misunderstanding you.

, and trust that each of our fellow humans will have found the same.

This seems tantamount to trusting to chance and that I would not be willing to accept. One of the greatest failings of the species is that of clear, concise, complete, and precise communications of ideas. This failing can be arguably attributed as a root cause for more of the political problems we have faced than perhaps all the rest put together and that overstating the significance of it is nigh impossible.

The formulation of such standards need by necessity to be very explicit, very simple, very small, and well understood by a vast and overwhelming majority of people. This is by no means impossible to accomplish, given the will to do so.

Treat others as you want to be treated. That is really the golden rule. That is NAP IMO.

That may be so, but the way it is typically stated does not inspire confidence in its sufficiency. Bear in mind the world is full of ignorant people as well as evil ones who will take advantage of any weakness in a written work for their advantage. This is a good argument against placing too much dependence on law as "authority" vis-a-vis as a set of guideposts.

Put in my best terms, I think it is an esoteric argument.

Not clear on your use of "esoteric" here. I find it to be quite the opposite - a properly formulated set of principles is small and intuitively honest in a way that I believe may be said for the Golden Rule. Specific cases of application may sprout some challenges in judgment, but the fundamentals can and should be codified in complete, correct, and clear language that is readily understood by any nominally intelligent human being.

It is a weak link in a philosophy that attempts to take the moral high ground.

This could be taken any of several ways, but as I tend to think you mean it I must again disagree. It is precisely one of the strongest links because it clarifies what is meant when speaking of the single fundamentally expressed prohibition placed upon the human prerogative to act. This is of central structural importance.

What I don't appreciate is the attempt to try and covet this idea away from others who may not agree with some of the other esoteric notions that are equally respectable, but also equally ambiguous.

Could you list one or two of these notions? To my knowledge they have yet to be offered up for discussion. I, at any rate, am unaware of what they might be.

We share common goals. Find those goals, and build relationships based on achieving those goals.

This is precisely what I have been advocating.