Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: SFL Board member: Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the NAP

  1. #1

    SFL Board member: Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the NAP

    Oh Boy: "Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle"


    Joshua Byers emails:


    I saw this article being linked to on Facebook by a Students for Liberty Executive Board member. The same board member, Eglė Markevičiūtė, who advocates for NATO military intervention in the Ukraine. The title, "Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle”

    I suspect Eglė is going to discredit herself with a significant portion of the liberty community. It is hard to say though as young people typically lack discernment. It is a fairly logical to see her reject the NAP if she’s calling for NATO in Ukraine. Is this a case of a young person’s heart and hatred of Putin trumping her better judgment due lack of experience? Or is it a case of an operative of NED attempting to undermine the liberty movement’s commitment to a non-interventionist foreign policy? Difficult to say. I lean toward the former, perhaps with a hopeful but potentially naive optimism.

    http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/s...e?Nonagression

    Finally, these developments remind me of an article I read from Rothbard describing the libertarian movement of the early 80s and the fissures that developed. Seems there is nothing new under the Sun. History is repeating itself.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/m...with-ed-crane/

    RW note: It is also interesting that the article was originally posted at the Koch-funded web site Libertarianism.org. The Koch brothers were, of course, behind the early 1980s fissure also, as Rothbard noted in the above referenced article:


    On Black Friday, March 27, 1981, at 9:00 A.M. in San Francisco, the “libertarian” power elite of the Cato Institute, consisting of President Edward H. Crane III and Other Shareholder Charles G. Koch, revealed its true nature and its cloven hoof. Crane, aided and abetted by Koch, ordered me to leave Cato’s regular quarterly board meeting, even though I am a shareholder and a founding board member of the Cato Institute. The Crane/Koch action was not only iniquitous and high-handed but also illegal, as my attorneys informed them before and during the meeting. They didn’t care. What’s more, as will be explained shortly, in order to accomplish this foul deed to their own satisfaction, Crane/Koch literally appropriated and confiscated the shares which I had naively left in the Cato Wichita office for “safekeeping,” an act clearly in violation of our agreement as well as contrary to every tenet of libertarian principle.
    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...ns-should.html



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    No biggie though. Consistency and principle are two pesky little things that need to be thrown by the wayside in order to achieve a 'diverse' movement.

  4. #3
    Ya' know........I don't subscribe to the NAP but you'll never hear me say that others should or shouldn't..

    Are folks so caught up in group think nowadays that they feel the need to drag others down their thought paths with them?

    There's lots of really good aspects to the NAP, and the philosophy works well for lots of folks, how about just leaving them alone?

  5. #4
    I also don't subscribe to the NAP anymore...but that doesn't mean I think initiations of aggression in almost any circumstance are a way to create the least coercive outcomes. That can only occur in choice sets where there is no non-coercive choice (where nature is coercing so much, that human coercion is paled in comparison, and the least coercive choice is not a lack of offensive or defensive aggression). An example of this would be stealing in a famine to save you and your child from starvation death...it should be illegal because you created a victim and they deserve compensation for what you've done, but it would be my contention that although this is a violation of the NAP, it is NOT unethical (as it was the least coercive path - 2 people starving to death is MORE coercive than 1 person being stolen from).

    Why did I explain that? Because what some neocon-leaning "libertarians" at SFL are advocating is not congruent with any known theory in ethics within libertarianism (and that includes my theory, which I developed on my own). It neither decreases coercion, decreases initiations of aggression, nor maximizes utility. Under deontological, consequentialist, or my circumstantialist ethics, it's still unethical to do what they are advocating.

    While I agree with tod evans about tolerance of ideas (especially in ethical theory) within libertarianism, we also need to be careful to not expand the ranks so far as to erase any meaning of the word "libertarianism" by continuously allowing the term to be co-opted by people who merely resemble us philosophically. Ethics is the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy, and until these seemingly neocon-leaning "libertarians" can coherently define and defend their alternative ethical theory, which they seem to think supports acts of initiated aggression in circumstances where it isn't the least coercive path available and doesn't maximize utility, then we have to be very careful not to define them as libertarians for sure (hence, I keep putting the word in " " when referring to them).

    This is where sgt150 is right. We're redefining libertarian ethics, or often allowing inconsistent logic to be applied far too much to the implications of those ethics, and therefore watering down libertarianism as a philosophy. It's bad enough we already have seemingly accepted libertarians who want closed borders (or anything but open borders), minarchy, a standing army, tariffs and other protectionism (like IP), etc. Now I have to accept people who are interventionists in foreign policy as libertarians too? No $#@!ing way. That's a line in the sand. You want interventionist foreign policy, and can't heavily detail your alternative ethical theory and defend it, then you aren't a libertarian...you're a neocon who heavily leans libertarian, or a "libertarian" who leans neocon. Either way, you aren't a libertarian.

    People aren't simply libertarian by calling themselves one, being in an organization that uses "liberty" in its title, or because they support Rand Paul. The word libertarian is becoming fashionable, and therefore distorted. It's like how Barry Goldwater said people who considered themselves "conservatives" would come to use the term but wouldn't at all resemble what he considered conservative. Just like he said about conservatism, I'm saying the same about libertarianism...using the term while advocating something clearly outside its original meaning is disgraceful, and ruins the word's reputation for principled stances based on some theory of ethics. Either detail and defend your alternative ethical theory (as I do with my theory), or stop calling yourself libertarian.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-22-2014 at 11:03 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  6. #5
    People aren't simply libertarian by calling themselves one, being in an organization that uses "liberty" in its title, and because they support Rand Paul. The word libertarian is becoming fashionable, and therefore distorted. It's like how Barry Goldwater said people who considered themselves "conservatives" would come to use the term but wouldn't at all resemble what he considered conservative. Just like he said about conservatism, I'm saying the same about libertarianism...using the term while advocating something clearly outside its original meaning is disgraceful, and ruins the word's reputation for principled stances based on some theory of ethics. Either detail and defend your alternative ethical theory (as I do with my theory), or stop calling yourself libertarian.
    They're not going to stop calling themselves libertarians because they are consciously trying to infiltrate, co-opt and destroy the movement. There's nothing we can do to stop that. It's just pathetic when we roll out the red carpet for them to do it. We shouldn't be making it easy for them.

  7. #6
    NAP is too America-centric. Not applicable to the global movement.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    They're not going to stop calling themselves libertarians because they are consciously trying to infiltrate, co-opt and destroy the movement. There's nothing we can do to stop that. It's just pathetic when we roll out the red carpet for them to do it. We shouldn't be making it easy for them.
    I totally agree. It's time we demand more of people in the movement. Incrementalism caused the state to get out of control (as always), and unless we want libertarianism to, in time, cease to resemble its original meaning, as the state no longer resembles the original meaning under the Constitution, then we'd better start drawing lines in the sand and jumping people's $#@! when they call themselves "libertarians" while advocating $#@! that logically conflicts with libertarian ethics (and there are more than one theory within libertarianism, so this shouldn't be considered xenophobic or dogmatic). They simply need to describe/define their alternative ethical theory and then DEFEND it if they want us to stop jumping their $#@!.

    But you and I know, that theory doesn't even exist, and it certainly is indefensible using logic consistently.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    NAP is too America-centric. Not applicable to the global movement.
    I know you're joking, and I get what you mean...but I would mention that the NAP is easier to buy into in 1st World nations than in 3rd World nations. The example I gave above in post #4 (paragraph one) is the reason...there are more extreme circumstances, and more often, where violation of the NAP is necessary for self preservation or the preservation of your loved ones in 3rd World nations. This is one of the reasons I began to question the NAP's universal applicability (in what are rare circumstances in 1st World nations, but are not so rare in 3rd World nations).

    I'm not trying to say the NAP is unethical though...nor am I saying it can be abandoned by anyone without first having an alternative theory that can be explained in detail and rigorously defended using logic. I'm certainly not agreeing with the interventionist foreign policy of some in SFL.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-22-2014 at 12:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    I know you're joking, and I get what you mean...but I would mention that the NAP is easier to buy into in 1st World nations than in 3rd World nations. The example I gave above in post #4 (paragraph one) is the reason...there are more extreme circumstances, and more often, where violation of the NAP is necessary for self preservation or the preservation of your loved ones in 3rd World nations. This is one of the reasons I began to question the NAP's universal applicability (in what are rare circumstances in 1st World nations, but are not so rare in 3rd World nations).

    I'm not trying to say the NAP is unethical though...nor am I saying it can be abandoned by anyone without first having an alternative theory that can be explained in detail and rigorously defended using logic. I'm certainly not agreeing with the interventionist foreign policy of some in SFL.
    I would agree with this, and some version of this reasoning is what I've used to try and understand Eglė's position on this issue. Although the Baltic countries aren't considered part of the Third World, the people in them suffered from more than 700 years (1200s into the 20th century) of being crushed under the heels of various foreign powers (namely, subjected to a feudal economy), Russia being the most recent power to inflict this sort of damage. Thus, I can understand that it makes her, as a native Lithuanian, very nervous to see Russia's expansionary desires coming to the forefront yet again. I think it's awfully rude, to say the least, of the person quoted in the OP to chalk her worries up to youthful naivete.

    I don't agree with Eglė's conclusions by any stretch of the imagination, but I am in a *privileged* position (cough) compared to her - there's nothing in US history that suggests I should be really worried about Russia gobbling up territories. I can certainly appreciate her perspective, but I can't personally support intervention. I just caution some, not all, libertarians against being completely dismissive of world history when trying to understand people's reactions to this latest business.

    This article provides some cultural perspective, even though I don't agree with every point being made: http://news.postimees.ee/2745824/sof...ceive-us-again
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    I also don't subscribe to the NAP anymore...but that doesn't mean I think initiations of aggression in almost any circumstance are a way to create the least coercive outcomes. That can only occur in choice sets where there is no non-coercive choice (where nature is coercing so much, that human coercion is paled in comparison, and the least coercive choice is not a lack of offensive or defensive aggression). An example of this would be stealing in a famine to save you and your child from starvation death...it should be illegal because you created a victim and they deserve compensation for what you've done, but it would be my contention that although this is a violation of the NAP, it is NOT unethical (as it was the least coercive path - 2 people starving to death is MORE coercive than 1 person being stolen from).

    Why did I explain that? Because what some neocon-leaning "libertarians" at SFL are advocating is not congruent with any known theory in ethics within libertarianism (and that includes my theory, which I developed on my own). It neither decreases coercion, decreases initiations of aggression, nor maximizes utility. Under deontological, consequentialist, or my circumstantialist ethics, it's still unethical to do what they are advocating.

    While I agree with tod evans about tolerance of ideas (especially in ethical theory) within libertarianism, we also need to be careful to not expand the ranks so far as to erase any meaning of the word "libertarianism" by continuously allowing the term to be co-opted by people who merely resemble us philosophically. Ethics is the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy, and until these seemingly neocon-leaning "libertarians" can coherently define and defend their alternative ethical theory, which they seem to think supports acts of initiated aggression in circumstances where it isn't the least coercive path available and doesn't maximize utility, then we have to be very careful not to define them as libertarians for sure (hence, I keep putting the word in " " when referring to them).

    This is where sgt150 is right. We're redefining libertarian ethics, or often allowing inconsistent logic to be applied far too much to the implications of those ethics, and therefore watering down libertarianism as a philosophy. It's bad enough we already have seemingly accepted libertarians who want closed borders (or anything but open borders), minarchy, a standing army, tariffs and other protectionism (like IP), etc. Now I have to accept people who are interventionists in foreign policy as libertarians too? No $#@!ing way. That's a line in the sand. You want interventionist foreign policy, and can't heavily detail your alternative ethical theory and defend it, then you aren't a libertarian...you're a neocon who heavily leans libertarian, or a "libertarian" who leans neocon. Either way, you aren't a libertarian.

    People aren't simply libertarian by calling themselves one, being in an organization that uses "liberty" in its title, or because they support Rand Paul. The word libertarian is becoming fashionable, and therefore distorted. It's like how Barry Goldwater said people who considered themselves "conservatives" would come to use the term but wouldn't at all resemble what he considered conservative. Just like he said about conservatism, I'm saying the same about libertarianism...using the term while advocating something clearly outside its original meaning is disgraceful, and ruins the word's reputation for principled stances based on some theory of ethics. Either detail and defend your alternative ethical theory (as I do with my theory), or stop calling yourself libertarian.
    While I agree in principle with what you wrote, I couldn't help but think about people who are appalled at the redefining of marriage (to include Gays). We just don't like our labels to be messed with.
    Last edited by Deborah K; 04-23-2014 at 02:39 PM.
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    They're not going to stop calling themselves libertarians because they are consciously trying to infiltrate, co-opt and destroy the movement. There's nothing we can do to stop that. It's just pathetic when we roll out the red carpet for them to do it. We shouldn't be making it easy for them.
    I do understand that there is a concerted effort to divide us. Just so you know. At the core of our beliefs is the acceptance of individual liberty and all that it encompasses. Individual liberty that does not come at the cost of damage to another. Any other belief system that undermines that basic belief, is no friend to us.
    Diversity finds unity in the message of freedom.

    Dilige et quod vis fac. ~ Saint Augustine

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Above all I think everyone needs to understand that neither the Bundys nor Finicum were militia or had prior military training. They were, first and foremost, Ranchers who had about all the shit they could take.
    Quote Originally Posted by HOLLYWOOD View Post
    If anything, this situation has proved the government is nothing but a dictatorship backed by deadly force... no different than the dictatorships in the banana republics, just more polished and cleverly propagandized.
    "I'll believe in good cops when they start turning bad cops in."

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......
    I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.
    Give me messy freedom every time!

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    The example I gave above in post #4 (paragraph one) is the reason...there are more extreme circumstances, and more often, where violation of the NAP is necessary for self preservation or the preservation of your loved ones in 3rd World nations.
    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual
    An example of this would be stealing in a famine to save you and your child from starvation death...it should be illegal because you created a victim and they deserve compensation for what you've done, but it would be my contention that although this is a violation of the NAP, it is NOT unethical (as it was the least coercive path - 2 people starving to death is MORE coercive than 1 person being stolen from).
    Oh joy, lifeboat ethics.

    I'm always confused about why people like to use lifeboat scenarios as a baseline for ethical discourse. And they always come up with rather irrelevant variations of particulars and details that ultimately ask the exact same question: are there circumstances where that which is accepted as immoral magically becomes moral? What's more, they're almost certainly begging the question, as they always leave out other relevant details that may comment on whether or not the circumstances being described are avoidable.

    • Why is there a famine?
    • What caused the famine?
    • Why doesn't the thief have food?
    • Why doesn't the thief have something to exchange for food?
    • Have they first attempted to acquire food without stealing?
    • How can it be known that the thief will ultimately starve unless they engage in theft at that specific moment, from that specific person, concerning that specific property?
    • Are there no charities or other sources of food donations that could feed the thief?


    I'm going to ignore the inclusion of the child, because honestly that's just a red herring appeal to emotion. And because I don't accept that it is just to murder one in order to save two, but evidently this is what seems to follow from what you're suggesting, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

    • Isn't this just an example of arbitrarily rationalizing theft, and then using that as a basis for ethics?
    • If there is a famine, isn't it just as likely the person being stolen from will starve and die as a result?
    • In saying that it is not unethical to steal the food, aren't you also suggesting that it would be unethical to attempt to stop the thief from stealing the food?
    • What if the person being stolen from catches the thief in the act, would it be unethical for them to resort to defensive violence in order to protect their property from theft?
    • Would it also be ethical for the thief to fight back, in order to secure the stolen property and be successful in their theft?
    • Would it also be ethical to murder the owner of the food in order to successfully steal the food?
    • What if it was you being stolen from?


    Ultimately, I don't find your example at all compelling or demonstrative as a inherent problem with NAP. Moreover, the alternative theory of ethics you seem to be suggesting here seems fairly inconsistent and arbitrary. By the standard being suggested here, someone could, perhaps, just as easily rationalize murder of their neighbor because they might subjectively perceive some future threat is possible, or probable. Or to follow it through to a more recognizable and relevant conclusion, someone could, perhaps, just as easily rationalize central planning and [coercive] redistribution of wealth in order to wage 'war on poverty'--feed the hungry, save the children, welfarism, etc. In essence, you're suggesting that theft is good in certain cases, and apparently bad in others. All that's required now is to have put uniforms and badges on people as arbitrary exceptions to ethical rules and standards and you'll find that you've essentially rationalized statism.

    In the example you give, NAP does not suggest it is good or right that the thief starves or dies; NAP only says that it isn't right for the thief to steal (an initiation of violence for the sake of theft) rightfully owned property (in this case, in the form of food) from someone else. NAP doesn't suggest that the thief should then be killed, or be made to starve to death for stealing, even if they are in violation of NAP, either. It only judges the act of aggression, and I suppose it could be argued that NAP also holds that the thief would have a legitimate debt to be settled after the fact. If the thief settles that debt, then NAP is satisfied, is it not?

    Would you voluntarily feed the starving thief, ProIndividual? If yes, then it seems as though the problem is solved. If no, then you probably don't have much business in posing moral dilemmas to begin with.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    While I agree in principle with what you wrote, I couldn't help but think about people who are appalled at the redefining of marriage (to include Gays). We just don't like our labels to be messed with.
    The history of marriage shows the following:

    1. It was not voluntary for women for most of its history.

    2. Women were property sold from father to husband, and they had no rights in the institution of marriage. Even in America it was legal to rape your wife not very long ago (Comstockery), and beat her. Marriage was historically a property contract where women were property, and that dominated its history longer than the fairytale socons tells about "one woman, one man" voluntary marriage being "traditional".

    3. For most of marriage's history, it was NOT monogamous.

    So, not monogamous, not voluntary, and not what any person of sound mind would call ethical today. That's the difference.

    I'm trying to keep a philosophy, not merely the label, intact. And history is on my side, unlike the "traditional marriage" advocates. Our philosophy is built on specific and non-negotiable conclusions based on various (but similar) ethical theories. If people lack those ethics, or can't define and defend their own ethical theories that conclude completely different things about resulting actions, then they can't be libertarians, logically.

    The history of our movement backs my claim...the history of marriage doesn't back the claim of socons. The socons already support non-traditional marriage, they just choose a very myopic view of history because it fits their pre-established mythological beliefs (which is where they get their "morals" - they don't derive them via logic like we do, for the most part).

    Marriage evolved over time to include more and more people as less and less coercion was used to threaten people out of the institution. The socons SAY they want traditional marriage, but they don't really (thank goodness). If they did, they'd advocate for polygamy, female sexual chattle slavery, bans on divorce, legalized rape and assault on wives within marriage by their husbands, and a return to dowry systems where women were purchased as property between men. What they want is to freeze the progress of marriage's expanding voluntary nature....they want the state to keep coercing people at the current level because the coercions they didn't like are already gone. It's pure hypocrisy.

    There is nothing ahistorical or hypocritical about defining libertarianism by its ethical theories, and demanding if we're going to abandon all the known ethical theories we should be able to logically define and defend the new ethical theory (or amoralism) used to supplant the old theories. I'm seeing a lot of people deny the NAP as an objective ethical truth (which I agree with), but not a lot of people saying what their new theory is and defending it (which I don't agree with).

    Many people here know I abandoned the NAP a while ago...and its controversial to say that to libertarians (many think you can't even be libertarian without the NAP - which is ahistorical, and illogical to some degree). However, I didn't announce that to anyone until I FIRST developed a new theory to replace it. If I didn't do that first, it would be like abandoning the Theory of Relativity in physics because of the Special Case (the exception to the theory, which shows the theory to be incomplete, and therefore invalid), without FIRST finding, defining, and defending the Theory of Everything.

    If I can do it, so can they. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt...but that's because I want to see if they indeed have an alternate theory, or if they just have criticism of the NAP with no alternative at all. As a wise person once said "critics create nothing"; criticism is hollow without presentation of creative alternatives of that which you criticize. It'd be like saying a movie you saw sucked, but not why it sucked, and not being able to say what a good movie was that we could see instead.

    I realize on the surface this seems like just a label dispute...but it's not simply that at all. It's a call for more than criticism...it's a call for answers and alternatives that can be defined and defended when criticisms are launched. Otherwise the criticisms are little more than symptomatic of inconsistent logic, inconsistent ethics, and the abandonment of consistent ethics when it is convenient for self interest.

    To advocate interventionism is a tall order...we'll see if they define and defend, or if they prove to be little more than false libertarians.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-23-2014 at 03:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  16. #14
    That article sure offers a simplistic view and not one reason for rejecting the NAP. It tries to make the argument that since the NAP does not cover all aspects of moral behavior that it should be rejected, but the premise that all immoral behavior stems from aggression is false, and quite frankly I am not so sure that that many libertarians believe that the NAP is the be-all end-all that the author claims.

    It appears to me that the author's purpose in writing the article is to simply be divisive.
    Last edited by Tod; 04-23-2014 at 05:25 PM.
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Oh joy, lifeboat ethics.

    I'm always confused about why people like to use lifeboat scenarios as a baseline for ethical discourse. And they always come up with rather irrelevant variations of particulars and details that ultimately ask the exact same question: are there circumstances where that which is accepted as immoral magically becomes moral? What's more, they're almost certainly begging the question, as they always leave out other relevant details that may comment on whether or not the circumstances being described are avoidable.





    Ultimately, I don't find your example at all compelling or demonstrative as a inherent problem with NAP. Moreover, the alternative theory of ethics you seem to be suggesting here seems fairly inconsistent and arbitrary. By the standard being suggested here, someone could, perhaps, just as easily rationalize murder of their neighbor because they might subjectively perceive some future threat is possible, or probable. Or to follow it through to a more recognizable and relevant conclusion, someone could, perhaps, just as easily rationalize central planning and [coercive] redistribution of wealth in order to wage 'war on poverty'--feed the hungry, save the children, welfarism, etc. In essence, you're suggesting that theft is good in certain cases, and apparently bad in others. All that's required now is to have put uniforms and badges on people as arbitrary exceptions to ethical rules and standards and you'll find that you've essentially rationalized statism.

    In the example you give, NAP does not suggest it is good or right that the thief starves or dies; NAP only says that it isn't right for the thief to steal (an initiation of violence for the sake of theft) rightfully owned property (in this case, in the form of food) from someone else. NAP doesn't suggest that the thief should then be killed, or be made to starve to death for stealing, even if they are in violation of NAP, either. It only judges the act of aggression, and I suppose it could be argued that NAP also holds that the thief would have a legitimate debt to be settled after the fact. If the thief settles that debt, then NAP is satisfied, is it not?

    Would you voluntarily feed the starving thief, ProIndividual? If yes, then it seems as though the problem is solved. If no, then you probably don't have much business in posing moral dilemmas to begin with.
    Well, "lifeboat ethics" exist in the real world. Famines occur in many parts of the world, as do other times (like natural disasters that temporarily suspend society and bring about anomie). Should the NAP only be for 1st World economies where these things are more rare (but not nonexistent)? If an ethical theory can't withstand the "Special Case", then the theory is invalid and needs to be replaced with a "Theory of Everything" (I know this Einstein, physics metaphor is wearing thin, but it's the best I can muster since logic and science are so closely tied).

    I'm always confused as to why people deny hypotheticals that poke holes in their theories when in fact the whole of philosophy and science is based on hypotheticals. Anytime you present any theory it should be tempered against two major ideas; 1) does it hold up universally, any time, any place, and 2) if it does not hold up universally, then it should be kept only until a more consistent theory comes about. As Popper explained, scientific (and ethical) theories are just a succession of incorrect answers, each less incorrect than the last (which does not imply the newest, least incorrect, theory is somehow absolutely correct or objective truth).

    This is why I claim ALL ethical theories, even my own, are subjective, not objective. There is a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET for short), but it isn't an ethical theory...precisely because its purely derived via logic and has no logical holes in it (that I'm yet aware of). Any theory presented past that SLOET would be subjective, no matter the attempt to call it objective (Molyneux, for example, makes a noble effort at claiming the NAP is objective, but falls short of doing so...but he gets mad props for his work, and the mighty attempt for all the right reasons).

    You seem to imply magic is needed to make an act moral or immoral under two different set of circumstances...but this presupposes that ANY act is moral or immoral unto itself, devoid of circumstance. My theory is circumstantialist (my term, to contrast with deontological and consequentialist)...it challenges that entire claim. I say no act is right or wrong in a vacuum....it is precisely the circumstances it occurs under that determines the ethical or unethical nature of the act. Stealing for fun is NOT equivalent to stealing out of starvation when all other alternatives have been exhausted. My claim is that the latter is actually ethical, even though it creates a victim who is not themselves a victimizer. The victim must be compensated after the extreme circumstance has passed (the law would still call theft illegal), but the penalties for such a crime would be different from the penalty for stealing because its fun. If you agree to that legal difference, but not the ethical one, then why? If both are unethical, shouldn't the penalty be the same? What makes this not the case?

    Because you KNOW somewhere, deep down, that they aren't the same. You may wish to still call it unethical to steal to preserve life, but I argue it is only by viewing aggression as the enemy of liberty that this is possible....when you view instead COERCION as the enemy of liberty, then only when aggression causes less than absolutely the minimum coercion does aggression become unethical. The entire reason for anarchism is to create a non-coercive, or least coercive world...and if following the NAP means increasing coercion, then you are working against yourself.

    Would you steal to eat in famine if no other means to eat were available, or would you sit there and starve? If you would steal (which most anyone would), you just admitted to breaking the NAP. This act decreases coercion in the scenario (death from starvation is far more coercive to the individual than stealing is to the individual). If you admit to a circumstance where you would break the NAP, or any ethical theory, you just have found that theory's "Special Case" (which invalidates the theory). It should then be your goal to discover a more consistent theory, so that you can abandon the older theory which is slightly inconsistent.

    Is the NAP awesome? HELL YES! Is it completely consistently applicable? HELL NO! Don't abandon it until you develop a better theory, but don't pretend out of nostalgia for the theory that its perfect when it isn't. Don't claim a priori that an act is ALWAYS, 100%, without exception, immoral, and then on the other hand say you'd break your theory which labels such a thing unethical.

    It's circular logic to say "the NAP says stealing is always wrong, so stealing is wrong because it violates the NAP". I dispute this...the NAP may say stealing is wrong at all times, but that does not logically prove this to be the case. And I argue there is no act which can be called unethical without explaining the circumstances in which it occurs. If you asked me if stealing was wrong, I'd reply "I need more information".

    And again, not everything that is ethical should be legal...stealing is ethical (imho) if it decreases total coercion when all affected are considered, like in a famine, BUT if that theft creates a victim (and it will), then it must be illegal because regardless of whether a victim is created on purpose, by accident, as the result of an ethical or unethical act, the victim deserves to be compensated. (I'm trying to be careful to differentiate between ethical theory and legal theories that are developed from them.)

    And no, I never begged the question, as I've explained this same hypothetical a ton of times, even on these forums. To presuppose the hypothetical has backdoors is deflection...IF YOU HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BUT DEATH OR THEFT, then what do you do? You break the NAP, and YOU KNOW YOU WOULD. Furthermore, I've given other circumstances that were real-world examples, not simply hypothets, so as to avoid this claim (as I've heard it 100 times). It didn't change a thing for my opponents. Remember the thread with the lifeboat scenario where murder and cannibalism were used on a dying man to save the other 3 afloat with him? I linked the actual court case. How does begging the question work there? It doesn't.

    Eventually we're going to have to face reality...there are times when no non-coercive choices are available. In these circumstances, choosing the path of least coercion is the optimal ethical choice (imho). You can choose the NAP in these circumstances, but it will increase the coercion beyond the least possible. I wouldn't call it unethical to choose the NAP, but you would call choosing the optimal ethical choice unethical...this is because you claim, using circular logic, that the NAP is objective, whereas I acknowledge ALL ethical theories are subjective. At some point, you have to admit to yourself there are time when you will break the NAP...and then figure out why this is so. I did that. I discovered it was because the NAP addresses aggression, not coercion, because it generally assumes (incorrectly) that ALL coercion is the result of aggression, and that ALL aggression causes more than the least possible coercion. When there are non-coercive choices (almost all the time here in America and other 1st World nations) this is correct...but when there are no non-coercive choices in a choice set, aggression does NOT cause the least possible coercion usually; it instead increases coercion. In these rare and extreme circumstances the NAP breaks down, and aggression can (and usually does) decrease total coercion for all affected. In many of these cases, is because man is not the only coercive force in the world...man is just a part of nature, and nature outside of man is actually far more coercive than any coercions of man. When the coercions of nature outside of man are pitted against man's coercions in a choice set where no non-coercive choices exist, man's coercions often actually are the least of coercions (and there is no non-coercive alternative which would outrank man's coercion as least coercive in the choice set).

    I know I'm challenging modern libertarian dogma...but that's all it is; dogma. It's pure dogma to say you prove the NAP is objective, not simply subjective, and that the NAP can somehow be used circularly to say what acts are ethical or unethical, devoid of the circumstances in which they occur.

    I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else, really. You notice I haven't went the way of our Pragmatarian "friend", by starting thread after thread so I can proselytize like preacher in a church. I don't mind debating the issue of ethics, however. So, if you want to challenge me on ethics, I will debate you on it, and I do believe I can use consistent logic to hold my own. But in the end, it can be an endless debate, as once a dogma is accepted, it's hard to abandon. I don't say this to offend, because I accepted the NAP for years as a dogma, and then left it for utilitarianism, and finally left utilitarianism and for some of the same reasons I left the NAP. I struggled with both decisions, and couldn't make the 2nd move until I found or developed a theory which answered my criticisms of the former two. I found no such theory (although situationalism was very close), so I had to develop my own theory instead. It took some time to perfect (when I first developed it, I lacked the SLOET to underpin many of its assertions, and the assertion of ethical theory being subjective).

    Now let's answer some questions:

    • Why is there a famine? It doesn't matter. Perhaps the state caused it, or perhaps nature outside of man did. It's kind of irrelevant since you are in the circumstance and can't get out. It's like asking "why is rapist raping me?" Who cares, you're being raped, let's deal with that problem now, not ponder what happened to the rapist as a child that made him a rapist.
    • What caused the famine? I'm not sure how this differs from the first question, but I assume it does. If you explain further. I'll try to give a better answer.
    • Why doesn't the thief have food? Again, I say it doesn't matter insofar as it isn't his/her fault. If they exhausted all other means to get food, and didn't get there through laziness (generally famines aren't caused by laziness, but instead by factors out of the victim's control). I actually did address this in other threads, and I said it was through no fault of their own. I can't be expected to keep repeating every detail of the same scenario every time I make this point...but I don't think you're doing it to be a dick, you're just not sure as to my answer, so I don't mind repeating it here...but I hope after this you'll understand what I mean when I present the scenario in an abbreviated form (like I did in this thread before this post).
    • Why doesn't the thief have something to exchange for food? He tried, no one will trade, including the guy with food, and he tried selling labor, sex, begging, borrowing, etc...I explain this in other threads by saying "he exhausted all other alternatives of peaceful means", or some similarly worded phraseology.
    • Have they first attempted to acquire food without stealing? Yes...OH YES...otherwise his act is not least coercive, logically.
    • How can it be known that the thief will ultimately starve unless they engage in theft at that specific moment, from that specific person, concerning that specific property? How can anything be ultimately known? We can't even prove reality exist...so I don't get what you mean. He's in a famine that's raging, people are dropping like flies...and he's missed many meals to this point. No aid is coming that he is aware of. The specifics as to who he chooses to steal from, however, must also be the least coercive path. He must choose to steal from the person who stands to lose the least from the theft....the person who is least likely to starve. For simplicity, however, I always explain the person being stole from is irrationally hoarding food and won't be harmed from the theft beyond the theft itself, and that he is the only person with food anywhere nearby.
    • Are there no charities or other sources of food donations that could feed the thief? No, or this would not be the least coercive choice. If there were charity, OF COURSE theft would be unethical.


    These are almost the same exact questions Molyneux asked me, and I wanted to ask him "why are you trying to weasel out of the stated hypothet?" I would have asked that, but he preempted it with the ad hominem that I was "obsessed with hypothets". I then wanted to use a real world court case, and that's when he decided he didn't want to play anymore. I know you aren't trying to weasel out; you don't realize I already explained all this in other threads (for whatever reason)...so don't think I'm saying that about you. I'm just relating that I explained it in full detail and STILL got these questions from him...hence, I call the NAP a type of dogma. An ethical dogma, in my view, but nonetheless a dogma (for some - and maybe not you; I can't say for sure).

    • Isn't this just an example of arbitrarily rationalizing theft, and then using that as a basis for ethics? No, because there is nothing arbitrary about the way it is determined.
    • If there is a famine, isn't it just as likely the person being stolen from will starve and die as a result? No, but even if this were so, this would be coercion neutral, not an increase in coercion...so I don't see how it matters to the total coercion in the assessment. I can show this in other scenarios as well, like the Trolley Dilemma (oft used in ethics discussions)...and I offered that up in another thread where we discussed this. If it makes it easier to see my point, assume they have plenty (as that is usually how I present the circumstance to you and others, and can show where I did exactly that in other threads and it didn't matter to your objection).
    • In saying that it is not unethical to steal the food, aren't you also suggesting that it would be unethical to attempt to stop the thief from stealing the food? It is ethical to try to stop the thief, it just isn't optimally ethical from my view unless it is a coercion neutral circumstance where both would starve without the food...however, it would only be ethically optimal to prevent the theft insofar as it was a coercion neutral circumstance (both would starve)...otherwise it would be optimally ethical to allow the theft (because it decreased total coercion for all affected since you can allow the theft and not die from starvation). Why? Because being stole from is not more coercive that starving to death, and you can sue the person later for compensation (and how much is another debate entirely, where likely we'd find much agreement).
    • What if the person being stolen from catches the thief in the act, would it be unethical for them to resort to defensive violence in order to protect their property from theft? Same answer as above.
    • Would it also be ethical for the thief to fight back, in order to secure the stolen property and be successful in their theft? Same answer as above, as the implications are derived the same way.
    • Would it also be ethical to murder the owner of the food in order to successfully steal the food? Only if it was coercion neutral or the least coercive path (if say you and your 5 year old child were going to die, and the man alone would die, and someone absolutely HAD TO die, with no other alternative. No act, not even murder, is unethical in a vacuum, I know this hard to stomach at first, but in the end even murder must face a logical prism to judge whether it is inherently evil, or only evil where it creates a MORE coercive world. In a famine, bottom line, everyone has the right to self preservation. I'd prefer other ways out. for sure...FORE SURE...but that's not the circumstance described here. You're asking if it is the least coercive thing you can do (whether alone, or as one of two or more coercion neutral choices). This is another place the Trolley Dilemma is helpful to show neither choice is any more ethical or optimal than the other.
    • What if it was you being stolen from? The same holds...ethics must stand up to the test of universality or their full of $#@!...you know that, and so do I. I'm full aware this can work against me, and I was also aware of this with the NAP when refusing to steal in a famine (or when denying myself things I wanted that I had no right to take in non-rare and non-extreme circumstances). Ethics can't be about self interest...they have to be about "right" and "wrong" determinations regardless of what side of the scenario you are on. I am consistent on this, even if you disagree with the theory...I'm not hypocritical, and I don't think you are either.


    Hopefully some of my answers are helping you to understand a simple point: the hypothet should, in good faith, be given the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to trying to find holes in the hypothet so we don't have to answer the hard questions. If we endlessly try to find holes in it, this can go on forever. Just assume the hypothet isn't full of these obvious holes anyone could see (especially you or I) when creating the hypothet. The point stands regardless; there are times you must break the NAP to decrease total coercion for all affected. That's the entire point of the hypothet...and even if the hypothet sucks, you can easily devise one where this occurs. I trust you have that much imagination and intelligence, since I can do it over and over again. Anything I can do, I trust you can do, regarding philosophy (I've read enough of your posts to know this).

    I'm going to ignore the inclusion of the child, because honestly that's just a red herring appeal to emotion. And because I don't accept that it is just to murder one in order to save two, but evidently this is what seems to follow from what you're suggesting, unless I'm misunderstanding you.
    It was an appeal to emotion...I admit as much. However, it originally started out as NOT an appeal like that...it was a 2 lives vs 1 life problem via the Trolley Dilemma. I am saying, if there is no other non-coercive choice, and the variables of the scenario are easily knowable and quantifiable (unlike the old "bomb in the stadium and a terrorist wants you to kill one person at the 50 yard line or he'll kill the whole stadium" - which has so many variables I can actually, and have, calculated why unsurety about the outcomes can actually make inaction the least coercive path in terms of EV (expected value) equations), that saving two lives at the expense of 1, as opposed to the only other choice (killing two to save one) is optimally ethical as it adds the least coercion possible to the world. Again, the hypothet must be assumed in good faith...and if you and your wife, or you and your kid, or you and some $#@! neighbor are going to starve to death, AND the only other choice is to steal food from one guy who will starve if you two live by doing so, then the optimal choice is to steal. One death is less coercive than two, clearly. It sucks, but you have no other choice. Are you suggesting you'd sit there with your $#@! neighbor and starve? Or would you survive? I'd suggest stealing here is ethical, but it should be illegal and you should have to pay compensation in some way for what you've done. You created a victim, if it was an ethical act. I think you'd steal and feel guilty like I would...it's horrid to create a victim, especially to cause one to die. But one death vs two? It's a no brainier for most (as there are no other choices in the good faith hypothet). I'm simply going to be there when you survive to tell you "it's not your fault, you had no choice, you did what you had to do, and it wasn't wrong ethically...it was unfortunate and a crime, but not wrong. The law should treat you two survivors different than two men who starved someone to death for fun."

    Ultimately, I don't find your example at all compelling or demonstrative as a inherent problem with NAP.
    Well, you should now, or it's a dogma. You weren't compelled because you failed to read the exact same hypothet the other 4 or 5 times I explained it other threads where it was far more detailed. I wasn't aware we were going to be going into this, or I would have wrote it out better for you. Everyone else I think understood, on good faith, what I meant. They didn't buy into my theory per se, but they understood what I meant by the hypothet because it isn't the first time I've brought it up, and it isn't hard to give me the benefit of the doubt by using your imagination to test the NAP (and any ethical theory) via worst case scenarios (which is what I was doing). ALL ETHICS MUST BE RIGOROUSLY TESTED THIS WAY, or they are fairly weakly tested.

    Moreover, the alternative theory of ethics you seem to be suggesting here seems fairly inconsistent and arbitrary.
    It's neither of those things. You say that because your assuming the NAP is objective and using circular logic to support its claim of acts being ethical or unethical with no regard to circumstances they occur in.

    I hardly spent a couple years developing an "arbitrary" or "inconsistent" theory. The NAP has holes in it in rare and extreme circumstances...it increases total coercion for all involved when no non-coercive choices are involved. The only way you can think there is always a non-coercive choice is to ignore coercions of nature, the Trolley Dilemma, and many other famous philosophical hypothets and real-world courts cases that demonstrate otherwise. It was the fact the NAP and Utility seemed to be full of holes in various (but not the same necessarily) circumstances that I decided to develop my theory and abandon them.

    How is it "arbitrary" for an anarchist to seek to create the least coercive world possible (in the absence of the ability to create a totally non-coercive world)? It logically isn't. Anarchism is all about decreasing coercion. I simply point out an inconvenient truth...this isn't always a pretty endeavor full of easy answers and wonderful outcomes. It was precisely my pursuit of consistency ( a theory that would work in both everyday life AND rare and extreme circumstances, unlike the NAP, to decrease total coercion for all affected) that led me here. To call the theory arbitrary and inconsistent is the opposite of what it is. It may be hard to stomach, but that's because it IS consistent and systematic (the opposite of arbitrary). Now, you can claim it's subjective...but so is any ethical theory...so I'd agree to that.

    By the standard being suggested here, someone could, perhaps, just as easily rationalize murder of their neighbor because they might subjectively perceive some future threat is possible, or probable.
    I don't see how. Now that I answered your questions above, I hope you can see this violates my theory. It has to be the least coercive path, or it is unethical. That probability would have to be as probable as any NAP-justified self defense killing, as you failed to explain any hypothet here where no non-coercive choice existed.

    The NAP and the PLC are identical in almost all circumstances, as almost all circumstances have at least one non-coercive choice available. They only differ when a circumstance has no non-coercive choice in its choice set, whether those choices are of varying degrees of coercion, or if those choices are equally coercive, or some combination of the two.

    Or to follow it through to a more recognizable and relevant conclusion, someone could, perhaps, just as easily rationalize central planning and [coercive] redistribution of wealth in order to wage 'war on poverty'--feed the hungry, save the children, welfarism, etc.
    I want to honestly congratulate you...this is a counter argument I thought of myself, but no one else, until now, has ever borught up. I can tell you're thinking. Kudos. Here is why you're wrong:

    The state is never least coercive, because that would mean we've LEGALIZED the crime (and I've already said legal theory and ethical theory aren't equivalent). How, if the state did these things, would it remunerate victims after the extreme and rare circumstance passed? It would have to create new victims to pay old victims! A pyramid scheme of harm. Of course, this is an endless regress of criminality...and so it is incongruent in legal theory based on the PLC. The PLC doesn't legalize coercion, not even in rare and extreme circumstances. Ethical theories and legal theories aren't the same thing...the latter is derived form the former, but they aren't identical. If a victim is created, they must be remunerated (if they wish to be anyways). That implies they can't create more victims to achieve this. Therefore, the state is not only unethical, but it is illegal according to my theory.

    Honestly, that was the best criticism I've faced thus far, and I can hardly believe someone finally brought it up! I've been waiting for that one for some time. You are really impressing me (not that this matters, but still).

    In essence, you're suggesting that theft is good in certain cases, and apparently bad in others.
    And you're suggesting that isn't the case, and yet will do the same damn thing in the theft-to-survive hypothet I presented (if taken on good faith)...so what does that say about your ethical theory? I simply don't believe you wouldn't act identically and live by stealing. You just seem to need to feel it is unethical because the NAP says so, despite the fact it was optimal to limiting coercion in the world to its lowest possible level. I just don't see how creating the least possible coercion is unethical...not anymore anyway.

    It only judges the act of aggression, and I suppose it could be argued that NAP also holds that the thief would have a legitimate debt to be settled after the fact. If the thief settles that debt, then NAP is satisfied, is it not?
    The NAP isn't contractual, polycentric, or panarchist legal theory....you're mixing the two (legal theory and ethical theory). The NAP cannot be satisfied...you either initiated the aggression here or not. It speaks to ethics, not the law (legal theory developed from the NAP). However, we agree, the thief would under both the PLC and NAP owe compensation (if the victim of theft wanted it anyways). The problem, as far as I'm claiming, is that the NAP only judges aggression (as it is believed, under the NAP, that all aggression, or at least all initiations of aggression, create coercion - which is the enemy of all anarchists and mostly of even minarchists - it neglects the times when (initiated) aggression DECREASES total coercion for all affected. That's its flaw, imho. It is the Theory of Relativity, and rare and extreme circumstances where no non-coercive choices exist are the Special Case. Just as the Special Case proves the Theory of Relativity invalid and incomplete in physics, and requires the pursuit of a Theory of Everything to replace it in order to resolve this problem, so to does the NAP (imo) require a theory to replace it. It can't be abandoned until that theory is developed, unless one wants to choose another theory (or lack thereof) in libertarianism that is already existing and less popular (like Utility or amoralism). I believe, having spent a couple years really pondering this, I've found that theory.

    But you don't have to take on my theory. I'm not trying to convince you. The theory satisfies my personal need to fix this problem, and until I find a flaw in it, in terms of consistency, I will hold onto it. It took a lot of work, and I've not found any reason to think there's a better, more consistent theory, including the NAP and utilitarianism. In fact, I found the entire idea of deontological vs consequentialist ethics to be a false paradigm, so I developed circumstantialist ethics. The PLC is purely circumstantialist, for obvious reasons I've already described. I feel both circumstatialism and the Path of Least Coercion manage to incorporate the best and completely consistent aspects of deontological, consequentialist, NAP, and Utility ethics, and simultaneously critiques their inconsistent or lacking aspects.

    In the end, I don't think judging aggression is superior to judging coercion, as opposing aggression doesn't ALWAYS (merely usually) create the least coercive outcome. I won't go into defining aggression via encyclopedias again, to show self defense is actually a form of aggression, as it had no affect the last time I did it (evidence didn't matter there, for some reason)...but I want to mention in passing that initiations of aggression aren't the only time aggression can decrease coercion when no non-coercive choice is available. If you were to accept the denotative, not colloquial or connotative, meaning of aggression, it becomes ultra clear the PLC is superior to the NAP (aka the ZERO aggression principle)...as anyone who believes in self defense is already denying the NAP taken to its logical conclusions and denotative implications. It's only because we aren't using self defense as part of this discussion, due to colloquial and connotative popular meaning of aggression, that this debate makes the PLC seem wholly controversial. Most people already inherently reject the zero aggression principle by believing self defense is justified. The PLC shows that responsive aggression (self defense) is ethical precisely because it reduces coercion to its least possible level when no non-coercive choice is present. This is why calling the PLC inconsistent makes no sense to me while claiming the NAP allows for self defense. That in itself is an inconsistency...and it isn't the PLC's.

    Would you voluntarily feed the starving thief, ProIndividual? If yes, then it seems as though the problem is solved.
    That's changing the hypothet. The hypothet is that there is no non-coercive choice....and that means whoever has the food refuses to donate it, trade for it, etc. So, no, that wasn't a way around the hypothet or its implications for the NAP.

    If no, then you probably don't have much business in posing moral dilemmas to begin with.
    Agreed, and yet that still doesn't change the hypothet. Please deal with the hypothet in good faith....or develop one of your own where NO non-coercive choice exists. I'll be happy to discuss this in the context of any hypothet where no non-coercive choice exists (because the PLC and NAP are identical when non-coercive choice exists, making that not a debate, but a point of agreement).

    If you want, next week I'll finally quit procrastinating and post my SLOET and PLC short overview to launch a debate/explanation thread about it. I've been busy lately, so I haven't done it yet...but I should make time. It's hard to motivate myself to do it because I know the negativity I'll face, and how long it takes to respond in detail. Can you blame me? It's like posting a thread about the NAP on a fascist forum (not that I'm calling you guys fascists at all...I'm simply referring to the level of expected grief I'd get).

    Anyways...thanks for making my day with the claim the PLC would lead to a state. That was cool...no one else has come up with that counter argument yet, and I've been waiting for it. I thought of that a while ago, and thought it was one the most in-depth criticisms someone could launch if they misunderstood the PLC's ramifications in legal theory. Finally, someone followed that line of thought! I was SOOO waiting to counter that argument...I finally got to. That alone made this long as post worth my time.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 04-23-2014 at 06:46 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.



Similar Threads

  1. 12 Reasons Why Conservatives Should Reject Scott Walker
    By TaftFan in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2015, 05:40 AM
  2. 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s ISIS War
    By Suzanimal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-12-2015, 06:07 PM
  3. Rick Santorum Medicaid fraud by company for which he was a board member
    By Davy Crockett in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-04-2012, 03:37 PM
  4. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-08-2011, 09:34 AM
  5. GOP Gives Endorsement to McCain, not Board Member Barr
    By angelatc in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 05:42 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •