The Absolute Right to refuse to associate

[paleocon1]

I maintain that for the NAP (non-aggression principle) to be seriously implemented in society a subsidiary principle of absolute right to refuse association- for any reason whatsoever is also necessary. We each have a Natural Right to decline association for business, religion, residence or personal activities any person or group we deem undesirable.

[osan]

I maintain that for the NAP (non-aggression principle) to be seriously implemented in society a subsidiary principle of absolute right to refuse association- for any reason whatsoever is also necessary. We each have a Natural Right to decline association for business, religion, residence or personal activities any person or group we deem undesirable.

This is an inescapable result of the NAP. If we may not aggress, then my refusal to associate is sacrosanct because only aggression will cause me to act against my will.

/thread

[Acala]

Agreed. And also following logically from the NAP is the absolute right to peaceful secession in place at all levels.

[Vanguard101]

The absolute right to refuse to associate creates two problems:

1. Addressing open borders debate
2. Autism

[Sam I am]

The absolute right to refuse to associate creates two problems:

1. Addressing debate
2. Autism

Even so, It's still implicit in the NAP.

[paleocon1]

The absolute right to refuse to associate creates two problems:

1. Addressing debate
2. Autism

Please elaborate

[Cabal]

I maintain that for the NAP (non-aggression principle) to be seriously implemented in society a subsidiary principle of absolute right to refuse association- for any reason whatsoever is also necessary. We each have a Natural Right to decline association for business, religion, residence or personal activities any person or group we deem undesirable.

Under NAP, one cannot rightfully initiate force against another to make them do anything, including associate.

[willwash]

Does this include if I want to start an all-white homeowner's association?

Let's go ahead and take this thing to its ugliest conclusion and see if opinions don't change.

[presence]

A business can't go putting racist signs in the window because everybody has a right to go in that store. Everybody! And have a right to buy something from that man and not feel demoralized or degraded

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...hite+pride+day

[osan]

Does this include if I want to start an all-white homeowner's association?

Is that a serious question? The answer should be obvious. If it is not for you, then I will give it for free: yes.

Let's go ahead and take this thing to its ugliest conclusion and see if opinions don't change.

Your innuendo here seems to be that ugly is universal and must be excised... failures on both accounts. Have I misread you?

Freedom is not always pretty. You may not like an all-white HOA. Perhaps I don't like it, either. Tough poo.

There are white separatist communities in place such as Idaho. By you apparent standard, that is "ugly". What of it? Would you suggest some action be taken against such people? If so, why and upon what validly authoritative basis?

[idiom]

Under NAP, one cannot rightfully initiate force against another to make them do anything, including associate.

Yes you can. You just can't do certain things to others property directly.

[idiom]

I maintain that for the NAP (non-aggression principle) to be seriously implemented in society a subsidiary principle of absolute right to refuse association- for any reason whatsoever is also necessary. We each have a Natural Right to decline association for business, religion, residence or personal activities any person or group we deem undesirable.

Does it also imply that you won't force people to abide by your version of the NAP?

Lets say you think someone is violating the NAP and violating your property. Under their definition of the NAP they are not violating your property.

If you retaliate, then you are the aggressor no?

[idiom]

A business can't go putting racist signs in the window because everybody has a right to go in that store. Everybody! And have a right to buy something from that man and not feel demoralized or degraded

Actually, a right to travel, coming from owning ones body, means one can go anywhere without repercussions. One may not be able to trade, but trespass is not a crime under the NAP.

[staerker]

Does this include if I want to start an all-white homeowner's association?

Are you saying that you don't think I have the right to refuse to associate with that group?

[Mr Tansill]

What does the phase "decline association for residence" mean?

[osan]

Does it also imply that you won't force people to abide by your version of the NAP?

This seems to suggest a serious failure in your understanding of the NAP.

Lets say you think someone is violating the NAP and violating your property. Under their definition of the NAP they are not violating your property.

If you retaliate, then you are the aggressor no?

This seems as casuistry. It matters not what another may believe in the psychotic haze of their demented idiocy. If you trespass upon me, I am giong to ruin your day in a significant manner. What you believe means nothing to me. Your intentions, fair or foul, are wholly irrelevant. If you move to stake me in order to save my soul from eternal damnation, I'm going to stop you even if I must shoot the ghost out from inside your carcass.

I will once again bore everyone with my saw about the Cardinal Postulate: all men hold equal claims to life. Accept this as true, and the truth about the NAP follows directly, intuitively, axiomatically, and apodictically therefrom. This is not rocket surgery by a long shot, though one does need to know the right questions to ask in order to get to truth. Given the CP, there then arises an objective standard by which to assess the propriety of all human praxis and to deduce proper conduct. It is so simple and so basic that people don't see it, mostly I suppose because they do not want to.

While the NAP as commonly expressed has been validly called into question along lines of subtlety, the basic notion is rock-solid sound.

To aggress against me where I have brought no harm upon you is by definition an act of aggression. I hold and reserve the right to do whatever I deem necessary to get your mitts off me. If I can walk away, I may. If I choose to demand you leave me alone, I may. If I deem your trespass as requiring a good beating in response, I may. If I feel I have to bury a meat cleaver in your head to protect myself, I may choose that. These are the brands of hazard, the risk of which you assume when you get stupid with me. This is how it should be with every man, as far as I am concerned, but to each his own. If there are those who choose to allow others to trespass upon them, it is not my business - certainly so where the "victim" in question makes no plea for aid. People have lost all sense of the notion of "respect", yet they think that repeating the word in talk suffices absent the walk.

[HVACTech]

the only person, who would even bother to ask a question such as this...
is a person who thinks that our rule of law applies to the people or to themselves.

can SOMEONE show me SOMETHING, in OUR Constitution that applies to the people?

(sound of crickets chirping..)

[TheTexan]

Yes, except where deemed otherwise by a legitimate government, such as the USA

[Cabal]

Yes you can. You just can't do certain things to others property directly.

No, you can't. This is the entire idea of NAP. Non-aggression principle; non-aggression = non-initiation of force. The only force that is permissible is that which is in defense of initiated force, or aggression.

[idiom]

This seems as casuistry. It matters not what another may believe in the psychotic haze of their demented idiocy.

Behold how on rothbardian regards the thoughts of another rothbardian.

The NAP is *not* a general feel-good non-initation of force cuddly fuzzy wuzzy cure-all. It is very specific in its defintion, and that definition varies greatly within the same school of thought.

Enforcing your vision of the NAP is violence and initiation of force. Just because you believe your version of it is written in flaming letters 300 ft tall by god doesn't make you right.

I noted on your post about the CP, that all men having zero claim to life doesn't violate your argument, therefore your argument really doesn't convince me.

While the NAP as commonly expressed has been validly called into question along lines of subtlety, the basic notion is rock-solid sound.

Its not subtlety whether or not slavery is okay. Its not subtlety whether or not travel is a right. Its not subtlety whether or not IP exists. Its not subtlety whether or not infanticide is okay. These are real live debates today within the NAP advocate community.

Enforcing what amounts to your opinion on people when you

bury a meat cleaver in [someones] head

is pure ungarnished initiation of force. You are lying to yourself and others by calling aggression non-aggression. Its pure Orwellian wordplay.

You are claiming knowledge of very specific absolute truth. Then killing people based on it.

While the NAP as commonly expressed has been validly called into question along lines of subtlety, the basic notion is rock-solid sound.

Meanwhile I still haven't read a counter to the solar shade problem, which seems to neatly expose the principle for the chaotic mess that it currently is.

To wit, if one were to build a solar shade between the Earth and the Sun, cutting off all sunlight from the Earth and killing 7 Billion people, the NAP would *not* consider that an act of transgression. That's a pretty solid flaw right there.

[idiom]

No, you can't. This is the entire idea of NAP. Non-aggression principle; non-aggression = non-initiation of force. The only force that is permissible is that which is in defense of initiated force, or aggression.

The only force which is permissible is that against the property of those who have violated your beliefs about your property even if they don't share you beliefs. The beliefs of the NAP seem to vary greatly upon the advocate of the NAP.

Personally I wouldn't be comfortable "retaliating" violently against innocent people on that sort of sandy foundation.

Lets pretend you believe in IP and I don't. Both are valid NAP positions. I now copy your IP and don't compensate you. You believe you now have the right to retaliate against me, even though to my knowledge I have not violated your property one iota.

Would you accept someone enforcing their beliefs about property on you and call their actions non-aggression? Because that is what you are asking. You are asking people to call things what they are not. You want people to call aggression non-aggression, because you have defined it that way.

[idiom]

Is that a serious question? The answer should be obvious. If it is not for you, then I will give it for free: yes.

Your innuendo here seems to be that ugly is universal and must be excised... failures on both accounts. Have I misread you?

Freedom is not always pretty. You may not like an all-white HOA. Perhaps I don't like it, either. Tough poo.

There are white separatist communities in place such as Idaho. By you apparent standard, that is "ugly". What of it? Would you suggest some action be taken against such people? If so, why and upon what validly authoritative basis?

Pssh, mere racism isn't ugly. Try the right to not associate with a 3 month old child. Passive Infanticide is not punishable under the NAP. And you are worried about having a white home owners association.

Children have no right to care from their parents. Parents should not be punished for neglect. Any such punishment is immoral.

If you choose not to associate with parents who neglect their children you are betraying the spirit of the NAP and being hypocritical, although you are not violating it.


Unless one could show that refusing to associate causes psychological harm in someone's brain. Now you have violated their property.

[paleocon1]

Does this include if I want to start an all-white homeowner's association?

Let's go ahead and take this thing to its ugliest conclusion and see if opinions don't change.

Absolutely, your approval for other to exercise Natural Rights is not required.

[paleocon1]

Does it also imply that you won't force people to abide by your version of the NAP?

Lets say you think someone is violating the NAP and violating your property. Under their definition of the NAP they are not violating your property.

If you retaliate, then you are the aggressor no?

Property and Person are either being attacked or they are not. Are you trying to imply that declining your trade because I detest your personal habits is somehow an aggression?

[paleocon1]

Actually, a right to travel, coming from owning ones body, means one can go anywhere without repercussions. One may not be able to trade, but trespass is not a crime under the NAP.

Come on to my Property uninvited and YES you are an aggressor. My wheat field is NOT your jogging track.

[paleocon1]

.......
















To wit, if one were to build a solar shade between the Earth and the Sun, cutting off all sunlight from the Earth and killing 7 Billion people, the NAP would *not* consider that an act of transgression. That's a pretty solid flaw right there.

Try it and you will find your clear aggression repressed whether you wish to admit the aggression or not.

[paleocon1]

Pssh, mere racism isn't ugly. Try the right to not associate with a 3 month old child. Passive Infanticide is not punishable under the NAP. And you are worried about having a white home owners association.

Children have no right to care from their parents. Parents should not be punished for neglect. Any such punishment is immoral.

If you choose not to associate with parents who neglect their children you are betraying the spirit of the NAP and being hypocritical, although you are not violating it.


.......

The child would simply be removed from your Property and you would be free to pound sand as you created an implied contact when you brought the child to term.

[osan]

Behold how on [sic] rothbardian regards the thoughts of another rothbardian.

Who says I am a Rothbardian?

Enforcing your vision of the NAP is violence and initiation of force.

I repeat, casuistry.

Just because you believe your version of it is written in flaming letters 300 ft tall by god doesn't make you right.

Accept the CP and the proof almost falls from one's butthole automatically.

I noted on your post about the CP, that all men having zero claim to life doesn't violate your argument, therefore your argument really doesn't convince me.

More casuistry. Are you attempting to be pedantic? This is such nonsense as to really be beneath worthiness of response, but I will because I don't want to see you start crying and whining that I was being "evasive".

Let us step back into reality and away from your nonsensical fantasy world where nobody holds claims to life. How many people have you met who have not at one time or another laid claim to life? None? That's what I thought. So please, can we cut the bull$#@! here and get down to actualities? All but perhaps the most physically ravaged newborns assert their claims to life. They cry when hungry. They fight as best their tiny selves will allow if abused or threatened. That is no evidence of zero claim to life. It is resounding demonstration of the claim in its fullest blossom. Therefore, your phony baloney attempt at being all deep-'n-$#@! does a spectacular face-plant into the concrete. But go ahead and let is see your proof - hell, just even your most feeble evidence - that people hold zero claims to life. Come on and bring it before everyone here and put me to shame. If you can do it, I will readily concede. But don't waste my time. I take exception to that and so far that is all you have managed here.

Back to your ridiculous fantasy island where men hold equally zero claims to life: it changes nothing precisely because each man's claim is precisely equal to that of his fellows. To act against one's fellow would be to assert a superior right, which is nonexistent. The relationship remains the same no matter what the quantity of claim might be. This is all about relative claims, in case you did not grok that part. So long as the claims are equal, the results of the CP must remain precisely the same. In this sense, the CP is perfectly arithmetic. It describes a relationship, a RATIO and it is unity itself. Furthermore, it could be validly taken to define a mathematical identity by division and multplication. My claim = your claim. Therefore, our claims can be called "unitary", i.e. equal to 1. My claim divided by your claim = 1 (unit). Your divided by mine = 1. Mine times yours = yours times mine = 1. This may seem silly to you, but it DOES illustrate the nature of the relationships.

You might say "but what about addition?" Addition and subtraction have no place here because they do not speak to rational relationships, which is the whole basis of the CP.

We can even write it as a limit, but lets not.

Even on Fantasy Island, the CP holds because it is all about the ratio and what that ratio implies. And yes, ratios are examples of absolutes precisely because they are scalar in nature, which is to say they are UNIVERSALLY NORMALIZED, just like the Z-score in statistics.

Enforcing what amounts to your opinion on people when you is pure ungarnished initiation of force. You are lying to yourself and others by calling aggression non-aggression. Its pure Orwellian wordplay.

That's rich, I tell you. You spew what is utter nonsense and then accuse me of playing words games.

You are claiming knowledge of very specific absolute truth. Then killing people based on it.

Sorry kid, but you are so utterly $#@!ed up here that I doubt there is any getting through.

To wit, if one were to build a solar shade between the Earth and the Sun, cutting off all sunlight from the Earth and killing 7 Billion people, the NAP would *not* consider that an act of transgression. That's a pretty solid flaw right there.

What the HELL? The act of building such a shade that would deny life-sustaining light is indeed an act of aggression. This is similar to saying if I place a Harry Potter magic barrier about your body such that you eventually run out of O2 and suffocate that it is OK by the NAP because, according to you, I have not aggressed.

I'll do you a favor here, just to shut you up: I concede. The NAP is wrong in every facet. My reasoning sucks, and I am incapable of crossing swords with you on this issue.

Happy? You win.

[Cabal]

The only force which is permissible is that against the property of those who have violated your beliefs about your property even if they don't share you beliefs. The beliefs of the NAP seem to vary greatly upon the advocate of the NAP.

Personally I wouldn't be comfortable "retaliating" violently against innocent people on that sort of sandy foundation.

That's all wonderful for you, and entirely irrelevant to the fact that under NAP, one cannot rightfully initiate force against another. Whether you personally approve of NAP or not is neither here nor there.

Lets pretend you believe in IP and I don't. Both are valid NAP positions. I now copy your IP and don't compensate you. You believe you now have the right to retaliate against me, even though to my knowledge I have not violated your property one iota.

Why must we pretend this? I'm not especially interested in playing pretend right now.

IP isn't really a "valid NAP position," as far as I can tell, at least not as it relates to ideas; the nature of physical property doesn't have much in common with the nature of ideas. As with all poorly constructed hypotheticals paraded around as legitimate arguments, of which yours is a drop in a veritable ocean, there is a distinct lack of relevant context and detail taken into account.

Would you accept someone enforcing their beliefs about property on you and call their actions non-aggression? Because that is what you are asking. You are asking people to call things what they are not. You want people to call aggression non-aggression, because you have defined it that way.

So, you're using NAP to argue against NAP? Is that it? If force is being initiated, it's in violation of NAP. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? NAP is a rather simple, straightforward principle. I'm honestly not sure how those such as yourself seem to have such difficulty with it.

I'm not asking anyone to do anything, in any case. In this thread, I've simply made a fact-statement about NAP as it applies to the OP's question. You, likely due to your apparent misunderstanding of NAP, have decided to take issue with that statement.

As an advocate of NAP in general, I'm not asking anyone to call anything what it is not, nor am I especially interested with using NAP as a rationalization with which to "retaliate" against anyone. NAP, it seems to me, necessarily promotes restitution over retaliation more often than not, anyway. It also seems to me defensive force is difficult to justify under NAP in many cases unless it is immediately a means of protecting against initiated violence in the moment. Additionally, NAP has something to say about equitable defensive force as well. Moreover, NAP doesn't assume that differences of 'belief' or opinion would magically cease to exist. Claims of aggression, particularly those of which were not readily evident on their own already, would still need to be proven to be deemed violations of NAP, or violations of some more specific rule constructed around NAP as a basis.

Over the years, I've personally seen many people try to make arguments akin to yours--it's neither a unique or novel sort of objection. Yet, none of them thus far, yourself included, have been able to show how what would qualify as aggression under NAP would somehow not truly be aggression. Aggression as it relates to NAP is fairly objective--force either exists or it does not, and it is either initiated or it is not.

[Mr Tansill]

No, you can't. This is the entire idea of NAP. Non-aggression principle; non-aggression = non-initiation of force. The only force that is permissible is that which is in defense of initiated force, or aggression.

And this is what I think the argument is boiling down to...I think most people generally agree (including me) with the idea of non-aggression. The dispute comes in when we start talking about what things are included when we talk about "force."

Most here I think would agree that the use of physical force is without question. Others here (likely a smaller group) would suggest that it also includes other things, such as taking someones "intellectual property."

Here is what settles it for me: If party A suggests to party B that if party B engages in X, then party A will take Y action, and party B decides to engage in X, then by default, party B accepts the consequence Y. Now, swap parties A and B. If the above syllogism retains its symmetry, then we have an agreed upon definition of something that constitutes a basis for a 'law.'

Example: A says to B "if you take my car, I (the citizenry) will put you in jail for 5 years." If B acts and steals A's car, then B accepts the 5 year term.